
Class Ei ft fa 



Book 



/ 

\ 



[93] 



sam§§ii(&is 



PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 



TJIAXSMITTINO, 



In pursuance of a resolution of the Senate, of 20th April, 

A "R^oyI of t\\e Attorney General, 



nELATIVE TO THE 



Introduction of Slaves into the United States^ 



CONTRARY TO EXISTING LAWS. 



MAT 6, 1822. 
Printed by order of the Senate of the United State?. 



WASHINGTON; 

^.ITVTED BX GALES & SBATON 

1822. 



&+*£ 

:(/& 



[88] 



To the Senate of the United States: 

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, of the 26th of April, 
requesting the President of the United States **to communicate to the 
Senate the report of the Attorney General, relative to any persons 
(citizens of the United States) who have been charged with, or sus- 
pected of, introducing any slaves into the United States, contrary to 
existing laws," I transmit herewith two reports from the Attorney 
General. 

JAMES MONROE. 

Washington, 6th May, 1822. 



5 [93] 

Office of the Attorney General of the U. S. 

February 2d, 1820, 

Sir: The slaves to which Governor Clark alludes, having heen im- 
ported prior to the act of the 3d March, 1819, do not fall within the 
sphere of the powers and duties assigned to the President by the first 
and second sections of this act. These slaves appear to have heen 
introduced in the fall of 1817, or in the following winter, at which 
time, by the laws of the United States, they were subject to be dis- 
posed of by the laws of the several states. If they were not proceed- 
ed against under the state laws, I understand that proceedings may 
now be had against them, under the 4th section of the act of Congress, 
of 3d March, 1819, which provides " that, when information shall 
be lodged with the attorney for the district of any state or territory, 
that any negro, &c. has been imported therein, contrary to the provi- 
sions of the acts in such case made and provided, it shall be the duty 
of the attorney forthwith to commence a prosecution by information, 
and process will issue against the person charged with holding such ne- 
gro, &c. and, if it shall be ascertained by the verdict of a jury that such 
negro, &c. has been brought in, contrary to the true intent and meaning 
of the acts, &c. then the court shall direct the marshal of the said dis- 
trict to take the said negro, &c. into his custody for safe keeping, 
subject to the orders of the President," &c. I understand this sec- 
tion of the act of 1819, as applying to all negroes theretofore brought 
in, against the provisions of any of the acts of Congress on the sub- 
ject, who had not been disposed of previously by the state laws; and, 
consequently, that if these negroes are in this predicament, and are 
now in any state or territory of the United States, proceedings may 
still be had against them under that section; but that the President 
has nothing to do with them, until they shall, by the judgment of a 
court, be placed in the hands of the marshal, subject to the orders of 
the President; and that, when so placed in the marshal's hands, the 
President may order them, if he pleases, to the coast of Africa, under 
the spirit of the act in which this 4th section is found. 

I think, also, that it is due both to the government and General 
Mitchell, that a prosecution should be instituted against him for the 
penalty given by the laws of the United States for the importation of 
slaves. Such a prosecution will give him an opportunity of acquitting 
himself, if innocent, and will inflict a just punishment on him, if 
guilty. 

With respect to the propriety of submitting this case to Congress, 
in their call for information as to the practices in evasion or viola- 
tion of our slave laws, Governor Clark's communication appears to 
me to come directly within the object of the call, and, being derived 
from so respectable a source as the Governor of the state of Georgia, 
I cannot perceive with what propriety it can be withheld. 
I have the honor, &c. &c. 

WM. WIRT. 
The President of the U. S. 



[ 93 ] i> 

Office of the Attorney General of the United States, 
2 1st January, 1821. 

Sir: I proceeded, on the 1st instant, according to appointment, to 
take up the case of General David B. Mitchell, the agent of the 
United States for Indian affairs, at the Greek agency, under a charge 
from Governor Clark, of Georgia, that he was concerned in the un- 
lawful importation of Africans, in breach of our laws, in the winter 
of 1817-18; and have now the honor of reporting to you, according 
to your direction, my opinion, both of the law and the facts of the 
ca^e. 

Tie only law of the United States which has any bearing on the 
conduct of General Mitchell, is the act of Congress of the 2d of 
March, 1807, entitled ♦• An act to prohibit the importation of slaves 
into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States from 
and after the first day of January, 1808." This act, after inflicting 
severe penalties on any who shall, after that day, import, or aid in 
importing, any negro, &c. to any port or place within the jurisdiction 
of the United States, with the view of selling them, or holding them 
in service or labor, proceeds to declare, among other things, in the 
4th section, that "neither the importer, nor any person or persons 
claiming from or under him, shall hold uny right or title whatever, to 
any negro, mulatto, or person of color, nor to the service or labor there- 
of, who way be imported or brought within the United States, or terri- 
tories t her of, in violation of this law; but the same shall remain sub- 
ject to any regulations, not contravening the provisions of this act, 
which the legislatures of the several states or territories, at any time 
hereafter may make for disposing of any such negro, mulatto, or 
person of color " This section of the act does not provide what shall 
be done with the persons thus imported, in case the legislatures of 
the several states shall not thereafter have made any regulation for 
disposing of them: but the 7th section of the same act, after authoriz- 
ing the seizures to be made by the armed vessels of the United States 
of any vessels with slaves on board, that may be found hovering on 
the coast, and giving a moiety of the forfeiture to those who make the 
seizure, provides, that, in order to entitle them to such moiety, the 
oilicers, &c. shall safe keep every negro, &c. found on board, &c. and 
shall deliver every such negro, &c. to such person or persons as shall 
be appointed by the respective states to receive the same, " and if no 
such person or persons shall be appointed by the respective states, they 
shall deliver every such negro, <frc. to the overseers of the poor of the 
port or place where suck ship or vessel may be brought or found, and 
shall immediately transmit to the Governor or chief magistrate of the 
state, an account of their proceedings, together with the number of such 
negroes, <yx\ and a descriptive list of the same, that he may give di- 
rections respecting such negroes ," <$-c. It is true, that this directory 
provision is confined, in terms, to the officers and men of the armed 
vessels, of the United States, making seizures of slave vessels on the 
coast, yet, as it forms a part of the same act with the section before 



7 [93] 

in part qiroted, and contains the only direction in the act as to what 
shall be done with negroes, &c. seized, where the state shall not, by 
its laws, have pointed out a person to receive them, it may be well 
considered as incorporated with the 4th section, as supplying its de- 
fects, and giving the rule of action in the analogous case of a seizure 
on land, so far as the direction could be carried into effect, under the 
circumstances of such a case. For example, in the case of a seizure 
made in the Indian country, where no counties were yet organized, 
and where there were no overseers of the poor; that part of the direc- 
tion which orders a delivery of the negroes to the overseers of the 
poor could not be carried into effect; but that part of it which re- 
quires an immediate report to the Governor of the state, could have 
been carried into effect; and the direction ought to be respected, as an 
expression of the purpose of Congress, where the state had omitted 
to provide persons for the function in question. Yet this construction 
of the act is not so obvious or necessary as to attach guilt to any 
man who, having made a seizure by land, shall have omitted to 
adopt and act upon it. But the 4th section, taken by itself, and with- 
out any reference to the 7th, in divesting the importer of all title to 
the negroes, and subjecting them to be disposed of according to the le- 
gal regulations of the state, would seem very naturally to advertize the 
seizor that the Governor of the state, officially charged with the exe- 
cution of laws of the state, ought to be forthwith apprized of the 
seizure, and its circumstances, that he might give direction respect- 
ing such negroes. 

The act of Congress, thus referring the disposal of slaves, illicitly 
imported, to the regulations which should thereafter be made by the 
legislatures of the several states, leads us to inquire, in the next 
place, whether the legislature of the state of Georgia, the theatre of 
the transactions under consideration, had made the regulations con- 
templated by the act of Congress. 

The constitution of the state of Georgia, of the year 1798, forbade 
the future importation of slaves from Africa, or any foreign place, 
after the first day of October following. There have been several 
prohibitory acts of the legislature of that state, both before and since 
the act of Congress, under very severe penalties; some of them, 
enacted just before the occurrence under review, made the importa- 
tion a penitentiary offence. But all these acts stopped at the inflic- 
tion of the penalty, leaving the importer still in possession of the 
slaves. I can find no act of the legislature of Georgia, in the volumes 
furnished from the Department of State, which connected itself with 
the act of Congress, of 1807, by providing the regulation therein con- 
templated, for the disposal of the negroes, &c. unlawfully introduced 
prior to the 19th December, 1817. On that day, an act was passed 
" for disposing of any such negro, mulatto, or person of color, who 
has been, or mav hereafter be, imported or brought into this state in 
violation of an act of the United States, entitled 'An act to prohibit 
the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdic 
tion of the United States, from and after the 1st day of January, 



[ 93 ] 8 

1808." The first section of tins act authorizes the Governor of the 
state " to appoint some fit and proper person to proceed to all such 
ports and places, within this state, as have, or may have, or may 
hereafter hold, any such negroes, &c. as may have been, or hereafter 
may be seized or condemned, under the above recited act of Congress, 
and who may be subject to the control of this state, and the person 
so appointed shall have full power and authority to ask, demand, &c. 
all such negroes, &c. and to convey the same to Milledgeville, and 
place them under the immediate control of the Executive of this state." 
The second section of the act authorizes the Governor to make sale 
of such negroes. &c. in such maimer as he may think best calculated for 
the interest of the state. The third section authorizes the Society of 
Colonization, &c. to anticipate the sale by a demand for the negroes, 
&c. to be transported to Africa, or any foreign place, on certain con- 
ditions, and requires the Governor to aid in promoting their bene- 
volent views in such manner as he may deem expedient. 

This act of the legislature of Georgia has been objected to, in its 
application to this case, on several grounds: 

First. That the negroes, in the case under consideration, had been 
imported before the passage of the act. 

The answer is, that the act expressly emhraces previous importa- 
tions. 

Second. This feature of the act is objected to as ex post facto. 

Answer. If the act inflicted any new penalty on the importer, in a 
past case, or divested a previously vested right, the objection would 
be valid; but it inflicts no new penalty, and, inde'ed, no penalty 
whatever. It divests no previously vested right, because the act of 
Congress, of 1807, had already declared that neither the importer, 
nor any one claiming under him, should hold any right or title what- 
soever to negroes thus imported, nor to the service of them. 

It is further objected, that the act of Georgia is inconsistent with 
the policij of the act of Congress. 

The first answer to the objection is, that Congress, by the act of 
1807, left it to the legislatures of the states to make any regulations, 
for disposing of any such negro, &c. not contravening the provisions 
of the act of Congress. Now, the act of Congress makes no pro- 
vision as to the state or condition, whether of freedom or slavery, 
in which such negro should be left. It stops with divesting the im- 
porter and those claiming under him of all title; but the mode of dis- 
poning of the negroes, &c. is left, and properly left, to the absolute 
control of the state into whose bosom they have been illicitly im- 
ported; for it must have been considered that the state, immediately 
affected by the importation, was most capable of judging in what 
way the mischief could be best counteracted. Nor do I perceive that 
the act of Georgia can be justly charged with being inconsistent with 
the policy, any more than with the express provisions, of the act of 
Congress. The policy of the latter act was to prohibit the future 
importation of slaves. The means which it adopts for this purpose 
are the infliction of heavy penalties on the importer, and stripping 



9 £•«!! 

w™ and all claiming under him, of all title to the persons thus im- • 
no^das slaves! the state law was in conflict with either of these 
Sons or instituted others calculated to encourage the iinpor a- 
ti would certainly he inconsistent both with the policy and pro- 

y Sons of he act of (ingress. But the question as to the manner 
in Xh the negroes are to be disposed of, after they have been acta, 
^imported, in violation of the law of Congress, is a question of 
self-defence, of self preservation, which Congress submits entirely to 
the discretion of the state affected by it. 

In farther reply to the objection, it may be asked, what could the 
state do, better 1 tLi it iJdone? Should it *"£^l** 
for exnortins: the persons thus introduced, out of the United States 
a ind the te !J tor es hereof ? Whither were they to be exported ? There 
w I tC no place provided to which the state could send them 
Should thev have been turned loose as freemen in the state? 1 be 
in 1 icv of sucl. a course U too palpable to find an advocate in any 
on wo Ts a q afntcd with the cond'ition of the slave-holding states 
Should they have b.n re-delivered to the neraonj who Wtol# 
them in, under a bond to carry them out of the United States, and 
oLt of the territories thereof? The inelhcacy of such a measure has 
been set in a strong tight by the several communications ot Gene a! 
Mitchell, which are now before me. and I find myself unable to ad a 
sinale illustration of the imbecility of such a course, in relation to the 
obj'ect of the act of Congress; I will barely suggest that, so tar from 
aiding that object, it is among the happiest courses which could be 
devised to frustrate and defeat it. ' .i»fc« 

I do not perceive that the act of Georgia is fairly liable to ei tier 
of the objections which have been taken to it; nor do I perceive that 
the state could have adopted a better or a more liberal course, (in 
relation to the slaves themselves.) than the alternative regulations 
proposed by this act. If the Colonization Society would undertake 
to carry them out of the country, to Africa or any foreign place, the 
ne-roes were to be delivered to them for that purpose, and the go- 
vernor was required to aid in the execution of this benevolent pur- 
pose; if that society should not apply, it remained for the state to 
look to its own safety, by placing them in that condition in which 
they would be the least likelv to do mischief; and the state has done 
so, according to their judgment, to which alone they are remitted by 
act of Congress, of 1807. . ' 

Before I leave the laws which bear on this subject it is proper to 
advert to an act of the legislature of Georgia, which was passed be- 
fore Congress was authorized by the Constitution to prohibit the mi. 
portation of slaves; and to which 1 advert, not because it has, in my 
opinion, any fair relation to the question, according to the date or 
the terms of the act, but because it has been assumed as an auxiliary 
guide in directing the conduct of General Mitchell in this case. I al- 
lude to the act of the legislature of Georgia, of the year 179b, entitled 
« to organize the militia in the several new counties pi this state; 
by the third section of which it is enacted, « That the olricers ot the 



[ 93 ] 10 

militia in the first brigade, in the first division, shall he authorized 
and empowered in their respective patrol districts, to apprehend any 
negro, mustee, or mulatto, freeman or freemen, slave or slaves, who 
shall hereafter arrive in any port of this state, from any of the West 
India or Bahama islands; and to keep such m us tees, negroes, or 
mulattoes, in close and safe custody, until they can be examined be- 
fore the corporation of Savannah, or any three justices of the peace 
for any of the counties lying in the said division, who are hereby au- 
thorized to cause such freeman or freemen, slave or slaves, to be ex- 
ported at the expense of the importer or owner, which such importer 
or owner is hereby made liable for, as well as for the expense of ap- 
prehending or keeping such person.'! I learn from the statements 
of General Mitchell which are before me, that the officers of the first 
brigade, in the first division of the militia of Georgia, covered in lo- 
cal residence the whole extent of the sea coast of Georgia; and that 
this law, as its date and terms sufficiently indicate, was levelled at 
the brigands whom the convulsions of St. Domingo had rendered ob- 
jects of terror, not only in that island, but in all the neighboring 
countries. 

That this act had no connection with the act of Congress of 1807, 
is manifest from the following considerations, which indeed are so 
palpable that they scarcely require suggestion: 

1st. That the act of Congress was certainly regarded by that body 
as the basis of a new system, to be reared under the federal constitu- 
tion for the prohibition of the whole slave trade, with which it was 
anticipated that the states would co operate. Congress acted as soon 
as it was at liberty to act on this great subject, leaving much, how- 
ever, to the future co-operation of the states to forward the grand ob- 
ject which they had in view . Hence, the language of the 4th section 
of the act of Congress of 1807, subjecting negroes imported in viola- 
tion of it, to such regulations as should be thereafter made by the 
several states. The state act under consideration, was not thereaf- 
ter made, but had passed more than ten years before the era of the 
prohibitory system under the constitution of the United States. 

2d. The act of Congress of 1807, is an act universal in its opera- 
tion against the importation of all persons of color from Africa or else- 
where; the state regulations, therefore, which it contemplated, were 
to be the regulations of commensurate extent; whereas the act of 
Georgia, under consideration, grew out of a particular occasion; is 
confined in its terms to that occasion; to persons of color imported 
or comi ng from the ll'esl 'Indies and the Bahama islands, exclusively; 
and this act expired so completely with the transient events which 
produced it, that, 1 understand, it has been considered as obsolete for 
twenty years. 

3d. It is to be farther observed, that the- power to apprehend under 
this act of Georgia, is confined to the militia officers who covered the 
sea coast; and, 

4th. That the power to export is confined to the corporation of Sa- 
vannah, or any three justices of the peace for the counties lying in the 
first division. 



11 [93] 

5th. That the exportation was to be, not out of the United States, 
or the territories thereof, but an exportation simply out of the state of 
Georgia; which, however, was to be at the expense of the importer or 
owner, " which such importer or owner was thereby expressly made 
liable for, as well as for the expense of apprehending and keeping 
such persons." 

I think it perfectly clear that this act has no hearing on the case. 

The results of this view of the law, are: 

1st. That, by the act of Congress of 1807, the importation of 
slaves from Africa or elsewhere, into the United States, or any place 
within their jurisdiction, is prohibited under severe pecuniary penal- 
ties. 

2d. That, by the same act, the importer, and all claiming under 
him, are declared to have no manner of title to the negroes imported, 
nor to their services. 

3d. That, by the same act, it is left to the legislatures of the states 
to regulate the manner in which the negroes thus imported, are to be 
disposed of. 

4th That, by these two last provisions, it become the duty of every 
good citizen, who should he apprised of a breach of the law, to take 
prompt and immediate steps for the seizure of the negroes, and the 
information of the Governor of the state, within which the seizure 
should be made, that he might give directions for disposing of the 
negroes. 

5th. That the legislature of Georgia had passed no act making the 
regulations contemplated by the law of Congress of 1 807, until the act 
of the !9th December, 18(7, before mentioned: to which act there is 
not, I conceive, any valid constitutional objection. 

I come, now to a much more diuHcult part of the subject — the facts 
of the case. The vast mass of documents, composed of affidavits, 
sometimes on notice, sometimes ex parte, of letters, hearsay state- 
ments, &c. the irreconcilable contradictions among the witnesses, the 
host of certificates and affidavits, reciprocally assailing and support- 
ing the character of these witnesses, render it next to an impossibility 
for me to come to an accurate conclusion on all the facts of the case. 
The great advantage of the trial of facts by a jury of a vicinage, 
arises from their knowledge of the parties and their witnesses, and the 
opportunity they enjoy of observing the countenances and manners 
of those witnesses while delivering in their testimony, viva voce. I 
I have none of these advantages. I have no personal knowledge ei- 
ther of the accuser or the accused, or any one of the witnesses, on 
the one side or on the other; and have nothing to guide me but con- 
tradictory statements, or the statements made by the parties them- 
selves. Since, however, it is your wish that I should proceed by 
the best lights that I have, to express my opinion of the facts, I shall 
do so, with this consolation under this ungrateful duty, that if I 
shall; unwittingly, do injustice to the parties, or either of them, by 
the opinion I may form, the whole case will pass, again, under your 
own review, and the error can he corrected before it shall have in- 
flicted u wound. 



[93] 12 

I will premise, however, that copies of the evidence originally 
sent on to the Departments of State and of War, composed in part 
of ex parte affidavits, letters, certificates, hearsay statements, &c. 
have been, mutually, furnished to the parties, with information that 
the evidence is not regular; this was done with the view to enable 
them to retake it, more formally, if they should think proper to do 
so, and to give them an opportunity, mutually, to make such stric- 
tures as they pleased on the adversary proof. General Mitchell de- 
clines taking the proof, over again, on two grounds. 1st, Of the 
difficulty, if not impractibility of taking it, in better form, because 
of the dispersion of the witnesses and the impossibility of command- 
ing their attendance, in this extra judicial proceeding, in which no 
process can issue to coerce them; and, 2d, Because, if Gov. Clark 
his accuser, wishes it, he can himself take the depositions of those 
witnesses (General Mitchell's) anew, and thus have all the benefit 
which he, could have derived from an original cross-examination. 
These considerations appear to me to be just, and I believe it would 
be in vain to wait in the hope of getting the testimony in better form. 
Taking the remarks of General Mitchell, therefore, as just, and giv- 
ing them a reciprocal action, i shall consider the evidence on both 
sides, as if all objections, in regard to form were waived as to the 
original affidavits, noting as ex parle those only which have been 
since offered, so far as 1 can make the discrimination} and noting, 
also, as I state the documents (through the whole of which we must 
necessarily travel) any other legal objections which strike me, to any 
reliance on them as proof. 

It is proper to state, before I open these documents to you, that 
the questions which they seem to me to suggest for your considera- 
tion, are these : 

I. Has the conduct of General Mitchell, throughout this transac- 
tion, been consistent with our- laws? 
II. If inconsistent, is that inconsistency to be fairly and reasonably 
imputed to an innocent mistake of the laws, or to a wilful and 
conscious violation of them ? 
III. If the latter, what is the extent and character of his offence? 
1st. Was he concerned as a partner, in the original purchase and 
introduction of the Africans, either by the advance of money to 
aid in the purchase, or by an engagement to be responsible for 
a proportion of the capital to be advanced, by the other part- 
ners; or by an engagement, in lieu of money, to render servi- 
ces, by protecting the Africans at the agency and facilitating 
their transfer to Alabama, or otherwise, for a proportion of the 
negroes, or any other part of the profits of the speculation? 
2d. if there was no previous and specific arrangement as to time 
or terms, was there a previous general understanding between 
him and Bowen, or others, that if the negroes should be brought 
to the agency, he would, for a reward, protect and give them a 
passport to the Alabama territory, or place them in a situation 
to be sold ? 



13 [ 93 ] 

3d. If there was no previous general understanding on the subject, 
did lie. from improper motives, when the negroes were actually 
brought to the agency, connive at, and aid in a breach of our 
laws, by protecting those negroes, and giving them a passport 
to Alabama? 

I proceed now to the documents, and I shall, first, present those 
which appear to me to operate in support of the charge, and then 
those which go to repel it, interweaving rn the course of these state- 
ments the remarks suggested by the parties, as well as those which 
occur to me as arising from them; and the objections to the docu- 
ments themselves as proof. 

In March, 1817, General Mitchell resigned the Executive chair of 
the state of Georgia, and accepted Ihe appointment of Indian agent, 
at the Creek agency, as the successor of Colonel Hawkins, whereup- 
on, Captain John S.Thomas, (a relation of Genera! Mitchell's by 
affinity,) and Captain Win. S. Mitchell, the General's son, (hoth of 
whom are witnesses in this transaction,) went immediately to reside 
at the agency, and undertook to plant a small crop of coin for the 
agency. See General Mitchell's letter to the Secretary of War, of 
d„te 27th July, 1820. 

The salary of the office of a Governor of Georgia, at the time that 
General Mitchell resigned it, w as §2,000 per annum; that of Indian 
agent at the same time was equal to that sum. But the Governor 
was elected for two years only; the agent was to hold during the 
pleasure of the President, that is, during good behavior. The sala- 
ries being equal, the inferior honor of the agency may be considered 
as fairly counterbalanced by its superior tenure; and I see nothing 
in this circumstance, in itself considered, to awaken just suspw ion 
against a character previously fair. I make this remark to exclude any 
inference from this step to the prejudice of General Mitchell. 

July, 1817, Major John Loving states a conversation which he 
had with General Mitchell, to this effect: Loving informed the agent 
that be, Loving, was desirous of making a purchase of Africans at 
Amelia Island, or elsewhere, within the Floridas, provided the same 
could be done safely and legally: upon these points the agent's 
opinion was requested; and he was further asked, whether he would 
allow Africans to be introduced through the Indian country. The 
reply of the agent was, that he had been thinking of such purchase 
himself, and that Loving might bring any Africans, which he might 
purchase, through the Indian country with safety, to the agency, where, 
he, the agent, would protect them. Loving having stated that he ex- 
pected to make his residence at Fort Hawkins, the agent suggested 
that the negroes might be removed, if Loving wished it, to the re- 
serve, where he ^Mitchell) thought they might be disposed of to ad- 
vantage. Their conversation then became more minute and detailed, 
and Loving was advised what route to travel. The witness says he 
took a memorandum of the route, but, that, having lost or mislaid it, 
he cannot now trace all the points by which he was to pass; he recol- 
lects, however, that he was to start from Amelia Island, and pass 
through the Creek country, by Barnard's, to the agency. 



[ 93 ] 14 

Thomas L. Woodward. This is a statement not on oath; and 
the circumstances which it states 'Are hearsay, merely. The do- 
cument, however, has been in the hands of General Mitchell, and 
lias been the subject of some remarks by him, which will be noticed 
hereafter. Woodward states, that, sometime shortly after General 
Mitchell was appointed agent for Indian Affairs, he (Woodward) was 
in company with Colonel Joseph Howard, a man of unblemished re- 
putation, who asked the witness if he would go to Fast Florida, or 
Amelia Island, to purchase Africans; the witness replied, that he did 
not wish to engage in a speculation of that sort, as the United States* 
laws, and laws of Georgia, did not tolerate such trade; and that if he 
was willing to engage in such speculation, he had not the funds to 
commence with. Colonel Howard replied, that if the witness would 
go to that country, for that purpose", General D. B. Mitchell would 
furnish him with money, and draw a certain part of the profits, and 
that the negroes, if purchased, could be brought up through the Creek 
nation bj wav of the agency, undiscovered, and then be disposed of 
to the best advantage; that this conversation occurred before the 
negroes were brought to the agency by Bowen. The witness adds 
to this statement, that while he was in Florida with General Jackson, 
Captain Wm. S. Mitchell (1 presume the agent's son before men- 
tioned) stated to him that he had an auut, in the low country, that 
died and left him fifty negroes. 

Christian Breithaupt. I his is an ex parte affidavit, recently re- 
ceived, and which, therefore. General Mitchell has never seen. It 
is covered under a letter from Mr. Breithaupt to the Secretary of 
War, dated " Mount Vintage, South Carolina, 27th December, 
1820," on which the Secretary endorses: " I know Mr. Breithaupt 
well, and his statement is entitled to the fullest confidence." This 
witness states that, in the month of August, 1817, a Mr. John Mar- 
tin, who had made purchases for the deponent at the land sales held 
at Milledgeville, came to deponent's house in company with 
Jared E. Grace; that, in the course of the conversation, Groce con- 
gratulated the deponent on the great bargains he had got, and ob- 
served that he (Groce) knew, however, of a much better speculation, 
by which a fortune could be realized in a very short time. His words 
were, " it could be easily done, with your means, and the services of 
a few such men as Martin." Deponent replied, that he supposed 
Groce to possess ample funds for the purpose. Groce answered in 
the negative, and said that his connection with the Erwins, and his set- 
tling in Mabama, together with his recent purchases, had quite exhaust- 
ed them, and that he was now upon borrowing, " but you (meaning 
the deponent) might, I know, procure the money, and we could do 
great business." ' The deponent then asked Groce what he had in 
view; that Groce appeared unwilling to disclose it; but, after a while, 
said to deponent: «« Do you know what is carrying on in Amelia 
Island?" The deponent then answered tuat he could guess what he 
now meant by his speculations, to wit, the purchase of African ne- 
groes: that Groce smiled. The deponent then further observed that 



15 [93] 

an adventure of that nature was not only a violation of the laws, but 
also connected with great personal danger. To the latter, Groce re- 
plied, either that he knew of a plan, or that he could suggest one, by 
which no danger was to be apprehended. The deponent thinks that 
the first was the expression made use of by Groce; and that the con- 
versation here ended, by the appearance of Mr. Martin, or some oth- 
er person. 

This incident acquires significance and importance by the subse- 
quent part of this case, and the prominent part which the same Jared 
E. Groce acted in it. 

It is now proper, in the order of time, to introduce Capt. William 
Bowen, the principal actor in this transaction. This gentleman had 
been for some time employed in the Indian department by Col. Haw- 
kins, the immediate predecessor of General Mitchell, as we learn by 
General Mitchell's letter of the 25th December, 1817, to the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury. John S. Thomas says that be was well ac- 
quainted with Bowen. What had been the duration and extent of 
General Mitchell's previous acquaintance with him, we are not in- 
formed by General Mitchell; he does not speak of him, however, as a 
stranger. Captain Mel vin, of the army, says: "How, or in what 
manner, Mr. Bowen was connected with the Creek agent, General 
Mitchell, it is not in my power to state. I have heard Mr. Bowen 
say that he had received, some time in 1817, ten thousand dollars from 
General Mitchell, for the purpose of pin chasing goods for the Creek 
Indians. Goods, said to amount to ten thousand dollars, were distributed 
to the reek Indians, at Fort Hawkins, sometime in. Tune or July, 1817, 
by the said Bowen." Thus far Capt. Melvin; and Gen. Mitchell, in 
his letter to the Secretary of War, of the 27th of July, 1820, states, 
incidentally, that he had seen Bowen in the month of July, 1817. 

In that same month, (the same month in which Loving represents 
the conversation to have passed between General Mitchell and him- 
self, and one month before the conversation between Groce and Brei- 
thaupt, in South Carolina.) Bowen says that he left Fort Hawkins to 
visit his friends in South Carolina; thence he passed to Augusta, (the 
residence of Andrew Erwin, the senior partner in the firm of Groce 
& Co. which Groce is the same Jared E. Groce, just mentioned.) 
Thence Bowen passed to Savannah, the residence of James Erwin, 
the son of Andrew, and another member of the firm of Erwin, Groce, 
& Co. Here he learns, casually, that great speculations were to be 
made at Amelia Island, in sugar and coffee. Having been furnished 
with means, chiefly by the credit of James Erwin, to embark in those 
speculations, he proceeds to that island. Here he finds that the arti- 
cles of sugar and coffee were higher than he expected, and he deter- 
mines to return to the main. By accident, however, he is left by the 
vessel in which he had intended to embark, and while he remains 
waiting for another conveyance, by another casualty, (the arrival of 
a cargo of negroes in one of Com. Amy's privateers) he is induced to 
change the subject of his speculation, aiid vests in the purchase of that 
cargo of negroes the funds which he had carried over to buy sugar 



[ 93 ] 16 

and coffee. The negroes arc delivered to him at a place agreed on, 
being about one hundred in number. He selects about sixty of the 
most prime and able ones, (having procured a place of lodging for the 
residue, and sets out for the westward, following a small Indian trail, 
leading from the direction of St. Augustine to Flint river, which, ac- 
cording to the map, crosses that river at Barnard's. He says that 
he became alarmed for the security of his property, and had deter- 
mined +o settle in West Florida. With this view he proceeds for fif- 
teen days through the woods and wilderness, and strikes Flint river 
about sixty miles below the Creek agency, w here he becomes alarm- 
ed again by the intelligence of the Seminole war; he finds himself, 
moreover, pressed by the want of provisions, an event, it seems, not 
to have been anticipated in travelling through a wilderness with six- 
ty Africans. In short, by the joint operation of alarm and famine, 
he is induced to carry the negroes to the Creek agency, where he ar- 
rives about the beginning of December, having travelled, by chance, 
over the exact route which Loving states General Mitchell to have in- 
dicated to him, so far as I can collect from comparative descriptions. 
In the fact, that his original destination was West Florida, and 
that the resolution to carry them to the agency was, for the first time, 
taken at Flint River, by the alarm and famine which pressed him at 
that point, Bow en is contradicted by one of the men hired to assist 
in the removal of the negroes. 

This witness states, in his affidavit, that, at the house of Charles 
Love, in East Florida, or close in the neighborhood of it, he found 
the negroes in possession of William Bowen and James Long; that 
he was employed by Long to assist in carrying the negroes to the 
agency; that they, Bowen', Long, and himself, with the negroes, 
crossed the St. Mary's River at a ford called the pine log ford, and 
proceeded with the negroes to the agency, where they deposited the 
negroes, at the lower end of Gen. Mitchell's field, and where they 
built houses for the negroes, and put them to work; a step certainly 
not deficient in boldness, on the presumption that ail this was done, 
without any previous understanding with General Mitchell. 

It seems that Gen. Mitchell was not at the agency, at the precise 
time of the arrival of these negroes, which is fixed by the witnesses 
at the first week in December. But he admits that he arrived at the 
agency on the 8th of that month, -Alien he was informed of the arrival 
of the" Africans; that he spent a night at the agency, and saw and 
conversed with Bowen on the subject. What was the nature of this 
conversation, throughout, it will be m<-re safe to learn from the acts 
of the parties than from their declarations. It was, certainly, not of 
a nature to excite any new alarm in the mind of Bowen, susceptible 
as he seems to have been of that emotion, nor to deter him from a 
repetition of the offence. For, having given to Long five of the ne- 
groes as a reward for his assistance in carrying the gang to that 
place, he sets out to Amelia Inland for the purpose of bringing oi 
the residue of his purchase to the agency: a step which it is not in 
the nature of things to believe that he would have taken, unless he, 
at least, understood it to be authorized by Gen. Mitchell. 



17 [ 93 ; 

Bowen's statement in his affidavit is calculated to make the im 
pression that the negroes, when purchased, were not delivered to hin 
at Amelia island, hut somewhere on the Main, and that when he car 
ried off the sixty hefore mentioned, the residue were left on the Main 
It seems, however, that they were in fact left on Amelia island, an< 
to Amelia Island he proceeded, taking with him, as assistants, th< 
same John Oliphant already mentioned, and an Indian hy the name o 
Tobler. They left Amelia island with the last parcel of negroes, forty 
two in number, and carried them up to St. Mary's river in a boat, t< 
Drummond's Landing, in East Florida, where Bowen sold four o 
the negroes to Captain Drummond. 

From this point it is understood that Bowen sent on the negroe; 
by Tobler and Oliphant, not intending himself, to accompany then 
any farther, but to pass through the interior of Georgia, where hi 
had business, and then to " proceed by way of Milledgeville and For 
Hawkins, to the agency, and meet the whole of the negroes." Be 
fore parting, however, with Tobler and his convoy, he addresses tin 
following letter to General Mitchell, which was sent by Tobler. 

Drummond's Bluff, 

25th December, 1817. 

I have got the balance of the stock that I had left on Amelia, saj 
forty-two, and am just starting them under the care of Tobler. ! 
believe I am narrowly watched, but think I have evaded discover^ 
as yet. The risk of getting this lot through, I believe to be more 
considerably more, than the first. A party was made up for the pur 
pose of follow ing me and Long, three days after we left St. Mary'; 
river. Mr. Clark, the collector, w as at his mills, and some persor 
lodged information that they were gone up the river and had crossed, 
he offered half to the inhabitants in that neighborhood, to detect us. 
Since the people have learnt that they would not have got any pari 
for the detection of those last sent up, I am informed, that they are 
displeased at the collector, for the imposition that he endeavored to 
practice on them, in offering what he could not perform. 

A detachment of soldiers has, for a month past, been stationed 
near Camp Pinkney, to guard the river and prevent smuggling. 

On the 23d instant the United States took possession of Amelia 
island. I had left there on the 21st instant; but am informed they 
seized all the Africans they could find. There was a cargo of one 
hundred and sixty, when I left the island, which have been run off to 
the main the night before the United States troops landed. 

I cannot cannot say how the other prize property fared. 

I go to Milledgeville by Savannah, and wish you to keep the ne- 
groes employed, until I can come out to the agency. 

I have directed Tobler to take charge of the horses and packs, &c. 
and to put the horses out in the Cane Swamp and attend to them. 

The channel through which Africans could be had, being obstruct- 
ed, they will rise considerably, notwithstanding excellent bargains 



[93] 



18 



could be had in the purchase of those that were run off to the Main 
from Amelia. 

I would make another purchase, but my other business is too much 
neglected, to take the necessary time to accomplish the security of 
them. 

Captain Thomas could have done well, if he had have come with 
me. Prime fellows were offered at Amelia $250; ordinary 175 to 
200. 

I am, respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM BO WEN. 
General D. B. Mitchell, 

Creek Agency. 



Besides this letter, Tobler was furnished with a bill of sale, pur- 
porting to have been executed on the 4th of December, 1817, a^ Cam- 
den county, in the state of Georgia, by one William Lane, by which, 
for the consideration of gJ2,600, Lane sold to Tobler an Indian of 
the Creek nation, forty-two negroes, whose names are stated, and 
purporting to have been attested by Wm. Drummond and John 
Smyth. Tobler was also instructed to claim the negroes as his own. 

Shortly after Tobler and his party had separated from Bowen, 
they were met by two men, whose affidavits have been taken, and 
are in substance as follows: 

Lodowick Ashley states, that, about the 24th December, 1817, he 
set out from his residence for the low country, accompanied by Jason 
Brinson; that on their way, about twelve miles this side of Traders' 
Hill, (the affidavit being taken in Telfair county,) on St. Mary's ri- 
ver, on what is called Blackshear's road, on the 26th day of the same 
month, they met a white man, by the name of Oliphant, and a Creek 
Indian, called Tobler, who had with them upwards of forty negroes, 
which Tobler said belonged to him; that they proceeded on to the 
house of William Drummond, in East Florida, where they saw 
Bowen, and having informed him that the negroes were taking a 
very hazardous route, as they would probably fall in with General 
Glasscock's army, upon which Bowen offered to give the witness his 
choice of the negroes to go and assist in conducting them to Timo- 
thy Barnard's, or to the neighborhood of the agency. The witness 
observed, that he should not like to be caught there, with the negroes, 
by General Mitchell; to which Bowen replied, that he believed Ge- 
neral Mitchell was his friend, and, that if the negroes were left or 
set down in the back part of the agent's field, it should entitle the 
witness to the negro before mentioned. 

Jason Brinson. The affidavit of this witness supports that of Ash- 
ley, in every material point. The final answer that he imputes to 
Bowen, for the purpose of overcoming Ashley's apprehensions of 
General Mitchell, is, that General Mitchell was his (Bowen' s) friend. 
It is proper here to notice, that Bowen has acknowledged the genu- 



19 [ 93 ] 

ineness of the letter from Drummond's Bluff, and the manner of his 
acknowledgment is worthy of notice. The original letter having 
been lost by Tobler, came into the hands of Governor Clark, through 
theagency of one William Moore. On the SOth October, Governor 
Clark presented this letter to Bowen, in the presence of the three 
persons named in the margin,* and demanded to know of him, whe- 
ther the letter was his handwriting, and bore his signature? To which 
Bowen replied, "It is useless for me to deny it, as my handwriting is 
so well known;' 9 which I understood to mean, " I would deny it, if I 
did not know that my handwriting could be so easily proved; but, 
since it can, it is useless for me to deny it." Governor Clark, howev- 
er, considering the answer as evasive, pressed him by another inter- 
rogatory. " Are we to understand that you acknowledge this letter 
to be your's?" to which Bowen answered in the affirmative. 

Bowen, in his affidavit, admits the correctness of the statement of 
his answers, as given by the above named witnesses. He states, 
also, that he was informed, at the time, that the object of the inquiry 
was not to injure him, but to ascertain General Mitchell's connexion 
in the affair; yet, anxious as he has since shown himself to repel the 
charge from General Mitchell, no solution of this incident then occur- 
red to him, to remove from that gentleman the suspicion which the 
letter was so well calculated to excite. Perceiving the bearing of 
the letter on General Mitchell, the confession of its genuineness is 
wrung from him with manifest reluctance, and he leaves it, for the 
present, to explain itself. The plausibility of the explanation which 
he afterwards offered, will he considered in its proper place. 

Colonel Morgan's affidavit. Before the arrival of the second par- 
cel of negroes at the agency, and about the 20th December, 1817, 
Colonel Gideon Morgan, jun. of the state of Tennessee, being on his 
return home from Georgia, called at the agency at the request of 
Andrew Erwin, of Augusta, for the purpose of inquiring, it seems, 
if there were any negroes there, in which Mr. Erwin was interested, 
the said Andrew having been wholly ignorant of the previous opera- 
tions of Bowen and his son James; and if such should be found to be 
the fact, for the further purpose of removing the negroes to a place ol 
more safety, or making such other disposition of them as he (Erwin, 
I presume,) thought most advantageous for the benefit of the pur- 
chasers. (Colonel Morgan's deposition is stated wholly in the first 
person; he never mentions himself in the third person; hence, I pre- 
sume, that bv the relative he, in this sentence, Mr. Erwin is meant.) 
As Colonel Morgan's authority to act in the case, he was furnished 
by Mr. Erwin with a letter, in the name of Erwin, Groce & Co. ad- 
dressed to General Mitchell, which is annexed to Colonel Morgan's 
affidavit, and in which not a word is said of the negroes, or any intel- 
ligible allusion made to them. Col. Morgan is there represented as 
« a gentleman of first rate integrity, who visits Fort Hawkins and 
the Alabama territory on business." " Should he (says the letter,] 



S. Rockwell, 1. Lamar, L. Atkinson. 



[93] 



20 



have occasion for funds, or any other services in your power, you will 
confer a singular favor on me by rendering him any service in your 
power. We will accept his drafts, at any sight, for any sum he may 
think proper to draw on nsfor." Col. Morgan, in passing Fort Haw- 
kins, (which is understood as being about sixty miles from the agen- 
cy,) fell in with General Gaines, from whom he received a lettes of 
introduction to General Mitchell, couched in the following terms: 
"This will be handed to you by Colonel Gideon Morgan, who is 
desirous to travel the nearest and best route to the Cherokee nation. 
He has applied to me for a passport: instead of which, knowing him 
to be a man of sterling worth, I take the liberty to introduce him to 
you, and request you will be pleased to view him as my friend. 
Should he request a formal passport, I beg you will be pleased to 
give him one." 

The character of Colonel Morgan is unimpeached. The hostility 
of General Gaines to these speculations meets us at every step. Yet 
here are the two letters which Colonel Morgan bore to the agency; 
that of Mr. Erwin's, representing him as proceeding to Alabama terri- 
tory on business; and that of Gen. Gaines, which represents him as re- 
quiring a guide and passport to travel by the nearest and best route 
to the Cherokee nation. Colonel Morgan, in his affidavit, represents 
himself as going home from Georgia to Tennessee, and as having 
called at the agency, at the request of Mr. Erwin, on the business be- 
fore mentioned. That General Gaines took from Colonel Morgan 
himself his intended destination, is unquestionable; that his letter is 
merely such a one as the standing of Colonel Morgan justified, ap- 
pears equally undeniable, and that General Gaines, so far from coun- 
tenancing, counteracted this transaction in every stage of it, is so far 
from being denied by Genera! Mitchell, that he seems to have been 
involved in a perpetual and rather irritated defence of himself against 
the charges of General Gaines, because of the suggestions of the latter 
gentlemen that he appeared either to be participating or conniving 
at this breach of our laws. I am at a loss, therefore, to apprehend 
the fairness of the following passage in a letter from General Mitchell 
to the Secretary of War, under date of the 3d of February, 18)8: 
" The truth, however, is, that so far from those negroes having been 
brought here by speculators, they were claimed by gentlemen of 
respectability, some of whom came to me with letters of introduction 
from the General himself, couched in the strongest terms of friend- 
ship." The documents before me shew no letters of introduction from 
General Gaines to the agent, save only in the single case of Colonel 
Morgan; and it does not appear that this gentlemen claimed the ne- 
groes as his own. 

That Colonel Morgan shewed the letter of Andrew Erwin in the 
name of Erwin, Groc'e & Co. to General Mitchell, cannot he doubted; 
because it constituted (according to appearances at least) the only au- 
thority which Colonel Morgan had to interfere with the negroes. 
Yet it is admitted by General Mitchell that he was willing to have 
delivered the negroes to Colonel Morgan: Colonel Morgan verifies 



21 [93] 

the same fact; and it is very clear that neither bond or security to 
carry them out of the United States, were contemplated to be required 
of Colonel Morgan as the condition of their delivery. He finally 
declined, however, to have any thing to do with them; and why he 
did so is very conceivable. 

The engagement in the letter of Erwin, Groce & Co. that they 
would pay, at any sight, the drafts of Colonel Morgan in favor of 
General Mitchell, to any amount, is certainly calculated to suggest 
inquiries which it would not be easy to answer satisfactorily. In a 
case, however, so pregnant with remark, it would be a work equally 
endless and useless to comment on every topic that presents itself. 

The fact of the introduction of such a number of native Africans at 
the agency, the mysterious and clandestine manner in which they 
Jiad been introduced, and the circumstance of their being fed and sup- 
ported at the expense of the agent, and protected by his authority, 
were calculated to excite suspicion and inquiry, and did excite them. 
It became necessary for General Mitchell to take some step to re- 
move these suspicions, and to vindicate to the government his official 
purity; and both he and his assistants, Captain Thomas and Captain 
Mitchell, were soon heard to say that he had reported the negroes to 
the government, with the view of taking their orders in the case. This 
report was a letter, written by General Mitchell to the Secretary of 
the Treasury of the United States, of which an extract has been fur- 
nished by General Mitchell. It bears date on the 2 5th December, 
1817, the same day on which Bovven wrote his letter from Drum- 
mond's Bluff to General Mitchell, and consequently before the arrival 
of the second parcel of negroes at the agency. In this letter General 
Mitchell says: " A certain Capt. Bowen, who had been for some time 
employed by Col. Hawkins in the Indian department, is now engaged 
with some mercantile houses in Jlugnsta and Savannah, and, as their 
agent, has purchased, some where on the St. Mary's, a small parcel 
of African negroes, and during my absence carried them to the 
neighborhood of the agency, on their way io the Alabama territory." 
After commenting upon the imperfection of the laws in restraint of 
the evil, he proceeds to say: " I told Captain Bowen I suspected him 
of being the importer, upon which he immediately produced a bill of 
sale for them, duly executed in Camden county, and solemnly affirmed 
that the bill of sale was made and executed by the agent and part own- 
er of a privateer, and were actually delivered to him in that part of 
Georgia. Under these circumstances, I felt I had no otlier course but 
to orde" him to carry them out of the United States; and, when I reflect- 
ed upon the facility with which such an order could be evaded, by 
just carrying them over the Spanish line, and re-introducing them; 
and believing, too, that the negroes were actually intended for the 
use of the parties interested, who, I have no doubt, are large land-hold- 
ers on the Alabama, by purchase at the recent sales, and not for sale, 
I declined detaining them." After returning to the insufficiency of 
the laws, he proceeds, " My knowledge of the fact that the govern- 
ment had determined to suppress the present proceedings at Amelia 



L 93 ] 22 

Island, and thereby prevent the recurrence of the offence, had some 
weight with me in the present case. If, in your opinion, the subject- 
matter of this letter, or any part of it, he of sufficient importance to be 
presented for the consideration of the President, or Secretary of War, 
you may so use it, in which case I shall hope for a communication of 
the opinion that may be formed of the facts stated, and for such in- 
struction as may be thought proper for the government of my con- 
duct;" that is, for the government of his conduct in Any future case 
that might occur; for, as to the present case, the whole letter repre- 
sents it as one which had been already disposed of. It rould never, 
I think, be inferred, from the structure of this letter, that the negroes 
were yet at the agency. General Mitchell does not state what he 
intended to do, but what he had actually done. He says, indeed, that, 
on his arrival at the agency, which was soon after the arrival of Capt. 
Bow en and the negroes, he immediately ordered that they should not 
be removed, until he had time to look into the subject; an order, by 
the by, which was wholly unnecessary, if the General's witness, 
Bovven, is to be believed. The General did then look into the sub- 
ject: he states his reflections and recollections of the laws of Georgia 
and of the United States, the result of which was, to use his own 
words, *' I felt that I had no other course but to order him to carry 
them out of the United States." Then, after stating some other con- 
siderations, he winds up the sentence by saying, " I declined detain- 
ing them." Who could infer from this statement that the negroes were 
yet detained at the agency, and that Bowen, so far from having gone 
to carry them out of the United States, had, to General Mitchell's 
knowledge, while he was writing this letter, gone back to the sea 
board for another parcel to add to them? Yet such are the facts, and 
I am sorry to be obliged to add, that this letter, from its apparent 
want of ingenuousness, is calculated rather to thicken than to dispel 
the suspicions that antecedent facts had unavoidably excited. 

This letter proves that General Mitchell, at the time of writing it, 
knew, 

1st. That those Africans had been unlawfully brought into the 
United States, and that Bowen's tale of the purchase in Camden 
county from the owner of a privateer who had brought them in, even 
if true, would not have altered the case. He must, consequent- 
ly, have known that, under the act of Congress of 1807, neither 
Bowen nor those for whom he acted, nor any person claiming under 
them, could have any right or title whatever to those negroes, or to 
their services. 

2d. That certain mercantile houses in Savannah and Augusta 
were interested in them; and if Bowen had not previously informed 
him, the letter from Erwin, Groce & Co. by Col. Morgan, and the 
visit of that gentleman to the agency, could not have left him in 
ignorance of the fact, that the house of Erwin, Groce & Co. was one 
at least of those houses. 

3d. He knew that these Africans were intended for Alabama, and 
to be settled on the lands of those gentlemen in that territory. 



23 [ 93 ] 

4th. General Mitchell must have known that, to carry them to 
Alabama, was as clear a violation of the act of Congress, as to car- 
ry them into any one of the United States;, for General Mitchell is a 
man, not only of uncommon intelligence and acuteness, but, as it 
appears by these documents, a lawyer by profession; and his talents, 
which are manifest, leave no doubt that he was a lawyer of distinc- 
tion. 

5th. That he had come to the conclusion to deliver them up to 
Bowen to be carried out of the United States, and this without any 
such bond as was afterwards required. 

6th. That, under the exporting act of Georgia, of 1796, he was 
not the person authorized to take the bond and act in the case, for 
this is his account of the mode of proceeding under that law: the 
negroes are reported to the Executive of the state, with a view to their 
being sent out of the United States; to do this, the Executive orders 
tliem delivered to some one who will give bond, with security, for 
their exportation." 

Not long after the date of this letter, and in the early part of Jan 
nary, 1 818, Tobler and Oliphant arrived, with the second parcel of 
the Africans, and on the 28th of that month, General Mitchell deli- 
vered forty-seven of the negroes to William Bowen and Jarcd E. 
Groce, with the following passport: 

" Creek Agency, 3,8th January, 1818. 

" Captain William Bowen having brought to the Creek agency, 
some time since, forty-seven African negroes, which I had detained 
until time was afforded to inquire into the circumstances of their trans- 
portation through the Creek nation, and the said Bowen having now 
produced to me a bill of sale for the said negroes, duly executed in 
Camden County, Georgia, and asserting that the said negroes were 
purchased in that part of Georgia, and intended for settlement in the 
Alabama territory, and not for sale: and, in order to remove all dif- 
ficulty or cause at further detention, has, this day, entered into bond, 
with Jarcd E. Groce, as his security, binding themselves to carry the 
said negroes out of the States. 

M I have, therefore, caused the said forty-seven negroes to be deli- 
vered to the said William Bowen and the said Jared E. Groce, for 
the purpose aforesaid, and by these presents, grant them, or either of 
them, permission to proceed through such parts of the Creek nation 
as may be necessary, and which they may find convenient, in convey- 
ing the said negroes out of the United States. 

" D. B. MITCHELL, A. I. .*." 

The bond is not among the documents, but it is a nullity, because 
General Mitchell had no authority, nor even the color of authority, 
to take such a bond; and even if it had been a valid bond, the act of 
taking the negroes " out of the United States" into the Alabama ter- 
ritory would have been no breach of its condition, if the terms of the 
bond comport with those of the passport. Indeed, I consider thf 



[ 93 ] 24 

passport, according to the fair and candid construction of its recital, 
to authorize, and to 'have been intended to authorize, a removal of the 
negroes to the Alabama territory. It is proper here to state, that this 
step was not taken, by General Mitchell, on a vague recollection of 
the laws which related to the case; for, in his letter to Governor Ra- 
bun, of 13th February, 1818, he says that, previous to doing it, he ex- 
amined the act of Congress and the laws of Georgia with some atten- 
tion. The slightest attention to which, I should have supposed, 
would have convinced a man of ordinary mind that the whole pro- 
ceeding was irregular and illegal. 

It is worthy of remark, that forty-seven of the Africans, only, 
were delivered to Bowen and Groce, or rather to Groce, (for Bowen 
did not proceed with them towards the Alabama,) leaving still at th 
agency the forty two brought by Tobler. If to this latter nuimVi 
you add the five which had been delivered to Long, and carried away 
by him, (as before stated,) you will perceive that just one half of tlv 
whole number that had been brought to the agency were now carried 
away by Groce. Connect this fact with another, stated by Andrev 
Erwin, on his cross-examination, that when his son advanced to 
Bower) the funds which were invested in the purchase of those Afri- 
cans, «« he has been informed by James Ervvin, that he had received 
from Bowen, individual notes for about half the amount," and you 
have the interest of Erwin, Groce, & Co. fixed at one half the num- 
ber of the Africans, thus coinciding with the number taken away by 
Groce. Whose those individual notes were, we are not informed; James 
Erwin says nothing about them, and Andrew says no more than I 
have quoted. 

It is here proper to call your attention to other documents which 
bear on the question of General Mitchell's interest in those negroes. 
John Lambert's affidavit. This witness states that he was in the 
employment of General Mitchell, at the agency, as a gardener, from 
March, 1817, to the latter part of December, of the same year; he 
states the arrival of the Africans; he does not know who owned them; 
buthe fed them with General Mitchell's provisions, by order of Cap- 
tain Mitchell (the son.) He further states, that he understood from 
General Mitchell, Captain Mitchell, Doctor Long, William Bowen, 
and others, that there was a division made of said negroes among 
them, and a part of which was said to be General Mitchell's, which 
part 'was distinguished from the others by a piece of yellow feret 
or tape tied in their hair, and were sent to one Michael Elliot's, 
about two miles from the agency, and afterwards returned back to 
the agency and there remained when the deponent left the place. 

John OLiphant's affidavit. This is the same witness and the same 
affidavit before adverted to in relation to another point. He states, 
that General Mitchell and Captain Bowen frequently came to see 
the negroes, after the second drove arrived. That some time after, 
the witness discovered that thirty or thirty -five of said negroes had 
a red flannel string tied around their wrists, which, the witness un- 
derstood, was to distinguish General Mitchell's from Mr. Bowcn's; 



25 [ 93 ] 

that, some time after this, a gentleman, they called Mr Groce, came 
and took away those that had not the red string on; these remained 
and were kept at work on General Mitchell's plantation until they 
were taken by M'Queen M'lntosh, &c. 

You will observe, that these witnesses cannot be referring to the 

same designation. The occurrence to which Lambert refers, must 

have taken place before the arrival of the second parcel of negroes; 

that of Oliphant afterwards: besides, the color of the badge, and the 

mode of wearing it, are different. 

< Oliphant further states, " that Mr. Bowen paid him for all his ser- 

{. vices in bringing the negroes to the agency, and that General Mitch- 

> ell paid him for his attention in taking care of them and issuing to 

. them their provisions." 

Henry Walker. This is an extract of a letter from Mr. Walker to 
91 Governor Clark, and consequently is not such evidence as would be 
I received in a court of law. 

t| 1 do not observe that this paper has been in the hands of General 
Mitchell, and to crown all its imperfections, the facts which it pro- 
fesses to state, are heresay merely. The character of the writer how- 
ever, is sustained by gentlemen high in office; and as the document 
will necessarily pass under your eyes, it is within the sphere of the 
duty, which I understand to be assigned to me, to notice it in this re- 
port, intended only for your use. 

The letter is dated the 7th June, 1820; and the writer states, that 
he understands General Mitchell intends, or has already taken the 
testimony of certain persons in the Creek nation, to exculpate him- 
self from the charge which is now exhibited against him, and in order 
that Governor Clarke might have an opportunity of availing himself 
of evidence in the same place, he thinks proper to make the communi- 
cation. He then states as follows: 

" Whilst I was at the late talk on the Chattowhochie, I held a con- 
■ versation with Mr Doyle, marshal of the nation, on the subject of 
the African business, in which he informed me, that the accusation 
against General Mitchell was, to his knowledge, true, and that the 
money which the Creeks ought to have received through the agent, 
was paid by the agent for the Africans." 

Gen. MTntosh and Doyle have both informed me, that the agent 
! solicited them to buy the negroes whilst they were stationed at the 
agency; that they refused to do it, unless he would make titles; he 
said he would not do it himself but that Captain Bowen would." 

M'Queen MTntosh, the surveyor of the district of Brunswick and 
port of Darien, in Georgia, having been informed that these Africans 
were at the agency, proceeded to that place with a view of seizing 
them. He arrived four days after Groce had set out with his gang, 
pursued and overtook them about twenty miles to the westward of fork 
Mitchell, on the road to the Alabama territory. Groce claimed the ne- 
groes as his, and was thereupon made a prisoner by M'lntosh. 

On his way back to the agency, he was deserted by a man of the 
name of Langham, who had promised to assist him as an escort, 
4 



[ 93 ] 26 

but who perfidiously hurried on to the agency for the purpose of giv- 
ing notice of M'Intosh's approach and intention, and enabling those 
who had charge of the negroes there, to put them out of the way. 
Several days previous to M'Intosh's arrival, Captain Melvin, of the 
fourth infantry, states, that he had observed fifteen of the Africans 
(the choicest of those brought to the agency by Bovven) building huts 
and clearing lands at the agency, the plantation of General Mitchell; 
on the night of M'Intosh's return to the agency, these fifteen were 
removed and secreted in the woods by William B. Mitchell, the as- 
sistant a^ent. M'Intosh states, that Captain Melvin accompanied 
him to the negro houses of General Mitchell, about one mile and a 
half from the residence of the agent, where they found fifteen Africans, 
which, from the severity of the cold, were suffered by him to remain 
in those houses; that on their return to the agency, he informed Capt. 
Mitchell of the seizure of the fifteen Africans, who replied, that it was 
well; Capt. Mitchell at that time gave no other information of any 
other Africans. On their return to the negro houses next morning, for 
the fifteen Africans, who had been seized the evening before, they re- 
ceived information from the negroes, that General Mitchell's over- 
seer had the night before supplied a great many Africans with provi- 
sions, and taken them into the woods; that Captain Melvin and him- 
self fell upon their trail and found about fifteen in the woods, who tried 
to make their escape, but were apprehended, and the whole thirty 
were brought to the agency; Captain Mitchell then delivered up 
eleven small Africans (children I presume) from the huts in the yard. 
Captain Mitchell, also, followed M'Intosh after he had proceeded 
about a mile and a half from the agency, on his return to Georgia, 
stating that he had left two or three more of the Africans behind; 
and that if he would send back for them they should be delivered, 
which M'Intosh declined. 

M'Intosh further states, that the whole number of Africans seized 
at the agency was forty-one, instead of fifteen, the number reported 
to him by Col. Brearly, which last was the number given to the Colo- 
nel by the agent. That Col. B. also informed him, that General 
Mitchell claimed a portion of the Africans that had been left at the 
agency. The negroes thus seized by M'Queen M'Intosh were carri- 
ed and delivered to the collector of the port of Daricn; and some 
proceedings seem to have been had against them, in the courts at Sa- 
vannah; of what kind I cannot state, no copy of the record having 
been furnished me. 

William Moore, affidavit and letters. If this witness is to be believ- 
ed, there is an end to this question; the guill of General Mitchell is 
placed beyond doubt. This man was a public blacksmith at the agen- 
cy, and seems to have been (at least it maybe believed) of some trust 
and confidence there. He states, that, having been requested by 
Captain Mitchell, the son, to search the General's desk for some let- 
ters from Arbuthnot, which the General was anxious to bring to the 
city of Washington, he found in his search two letters from Bo wen to 
General Mitchell, of which, under a sense of public duty, he made 



27 [ 93 } 

copies, and handed them to Governor Clarke; he swears that the 
ori-inals were iii the hand writing of Wm. Bowen, and, he believes, 
are°now in the possesion of General Mitchell, if not destroyed by 
him or some other person at his request. These letters are as fol- 
lows: 

Milledgeville, 7 th March, 1818. 

Mr. Groce arrived here last night on his way to the Alabama,, 
and leaves this morning by the upper route. I am happy to state 
that Mr G. has succeeded in bridling his tongue in some measure; he 
appears sensible of the importance of being less communicative to the 
inquisitive. He has averred to me last night, by many protestations, 
that he never will, in any court, divuige any thing to the prejudice ot 
any party, and further states that he would go to all lengths to serve 
any of the party concerned, and requested me to name to you his 
wish that you would signify your belief that he was not concerned 
in the introduction. From the very eccentric character of Mr. G. 
it would probably be well to indulge him in this particular, as I 
fear nothing but from his apparent anxiety to convince the public, 
by explanations, of his innocence, a letter from you, stating to him 
your belief that he was merely a bonds man for the removal of the 

would satisfy him. He states that if the party will justify him, 

he will not stop at any thing [in] the justification of the others. Mr. 
Andrew or James Erwin will be here this day, and I can be able to 
hear on what footing the affair stands in Savannah. I cannot un- 
derstand Mr. G's explanations any more than if he was speaking 
Congo; however, I have from Mr. G. that he has employed Mr. W. 
S. Bullock, for an advocate. Mr. G. presented himself to the dis- 
trict attorney, and has been released with a certificate that libel has 
been lodged against him for the illegal introduction of slaves. 

I learnt vesterday, that the governor has received a letter from 
the district attorney, informing him that the negroes would be libel- 
led on the part of the United States. It seems that the Governor 
has written to the collector at Darien, wishing to know his opinion 
of the propriety of having the * ** libelled in behalf of the state of 
Georgia, or letting them be libelled by M'lntosh, in behalf of 
the United States; the collector informed, that it was his opinion that 
the best method for the present, was to libel in behalf of the United 
States; prosecute Mr. G. and force him into explanation of other dis- 
coveries. This I have mentioned to Mr. G. who swears that a court 
shall neverdraw from him any thing detrimental to the character or 
interest of any one whatever. 

I find that it will be most prudent to humor the capricious notions 
of that consummate fool, to secure his, or rather prove his silence on 
the affairs. 



[ 93 ] 28 

I have never dreaded any thing but his imprudence; however, hope 
he will now stick to what he has promised. 
I am, very respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM BOWEN. 
General D. B. Mitchell, 

Creek Jlgency. 



Milledgeville, 2Sd March, 1818. 

1 wrote you last mail respecting the bills of sale, and for your 
opinion of the best probable means of conducting the affair. I have 
procrastinated my departure to Savannah, to hear from you. It 
appears to me best, that the last parcel should be claimed by me, 
from a right of purchase from Tobler; his right could be made from 
a purchase in Camden county, or from East Florida, as the case 
may be thought most safe: in the case of Tobler's claim, if he docs 
not claim from a purchase in Camden, they cannot prove that they 
ever were in the slate of Georgia. 

Captain Thomas speaks of going to Savannah with me, and if I 
can get the whole on board, 1 can make some apparent arrangement 
with him for the twenty-eight of yours: I should be very glad to hear 
from you as soon as possible, and if no immediate chance offers, per- 
haps Brady could come in again and bear your advice. Several of 
the attorneys who have attended court here, have expressed their 
opinions, that the property could not be lost, nor be kept from me. 
Very little is said »f the matter at all, and it seems to have died away 
since your publication. 

I remain, with much regard, 

Your most obedient servant, 

WILLIAM BOWEN. 

General D. B. Mitchell, 

Creek agency. 

It is only necessary to add to these letters at present, that the cha- 
racter of Moore is supported by a host of witnesses, some of whom 
hold the most respectable offices in the state, and among the rest, by 
Governor Clark himself; while, on the other hand, he is represent- 
ed as among the basest of characters, and affidavits have been taken 
to support this representation, which will be hereafter referred to. 

Thus far the circumstances which appear to me as going to support 
the accusation. 

I turn now to the evidence in defence; and as explanatory of it, 
will give an epitome of General Mitchell's several communications 
on the subject, for the purpose of shewing what he admits, and what 
he denies; and, consequently, the points to which his evidence is ap- 



29 [ 93 ] 

plied. As I proceed with this analysis, I propose, in order to pre- 
vent the necessity of returning to these communications again, to 
suggest any circumstances which strike me, as inconsistent with the 
claim of entire innocence on the part of the agent. 

I have already presented the substance of the agent's communica- 
tion of the 25th December, 1817, and noted my objections to it. 

The next communication of the agent is, a letter to the Secretary 
of War, under date from the Creek Agency, the 3d February, 1818; 
and, consequently, written before M'lntosh's seizure of the negroes, 
but after the parcel under Groce had left the agency. In this let- 
ter the agent enters into a deience. against several accusations which 
had been lodged against him by General Gaines with the Governor 
of Georgia, and which had been published in the Milledgcville Ga- 
zette, of the 27th January, 1818. Among others, he takes up the 
subject of the Africans, thus : — " As to the African negroes of which 
the General speaks, 1 have already communicated the facts in rela- 
tion to them, to the Secretary of the Treasury." 

Tins alludes to the letter of the 25th December, on which I have 
already commented, and which I think it manifest, did not contain a 
communication of the facts. Among other things, the letter was 
written before the arrival of the second parcel of negroes, and this 
being a new fact, having occurred since the date of that letter, but 
before the date of this which we are now examining, ought to have 
found a place in this ; let us see if it does : The letter proceeds "and 
in addition to that communication have now only to add, that after I 
had made that communication, and on the most mature reflection and 
consideration of the act of Congress and the law of Georgia, I deemed 
it best to require the party claiming the negroes, before I permitted their 
removal, to give bond and security, to carry them out of the U. States; 
because, that is the course pursued under the law of Georgia, and ap- 
peared to me to be the proper course." 

There is nothing here, you perceive, of the parcel which had ar- 
rived, after the communication to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

There is nothing said of the forty odd negroes which yet remained; 
but the statement is calculated (like that to the Secretary of the 
Treasury) to convey the idea, that all the negroes which had arriv- 
ed at the agency, at the time of its date, had been sent off out of the 
United States, and the sequel of the statement tends to confirm this 
idea. The letter proceeds, w the scarcity of provision at this place, 
made their detention extremely inconvenient; and hence, I became 
anxious for their removal, otherwise I should have delayed acting in 
the case, until I had received the orders of government. The ne- 
groes having been here, however, and my taking no care to explain 
their situation to every one I saw, left room for conjecture; and the 
General sees in this case an organized system of opposition to him- 
self, and consequently to the public service. The truth, however, is, 
that so far from these negroes having been brought here by speculators, 
they were claimed by gentlemen of respectability, some of whom 
came to me with letters of introduction from the General himself, 



t 83 1 



30 



couched in the strongest terms of friendship. I do not know that 
the General was apprized of the object for which these gentlemen 
visited the agency; but, I mention the fact for two reasons; first, 
to shew that the General is entirely in error, when he asserts, that 
negroes have been recently carried to the agency by speculators, by 
whom a spirit of opposition is excited to his measures, injurious to 
the public service; and second, because, it is my desire that you should 
know every material fact which takes place here, and the fact in this 
case really is, that the negroes it appears are the property of some 
respectable gentlemen, purchased by an agent for their use, and not 
one of them for sale; and were intended for settlement on the ilaba- 
ma, but will now, I am confident, be carried beyond the limits of 
the United States." 

This is the whole of the agent's letter of 3d February, which re- 
lates to this case, and on which I think it my duty to remark : first, 
that the scarcity of provisions is a new motive for the permitting the 
departure of the negroes, which finds no place in the agent's letter of 
25th December: second, that the course of proceeding under the law 
of Georgia, as described in this letter, is radically different from the 
account given of it in the letter of the 25th December. In this last 
mentioned letter, the course is represented to be, to report the ne- 
groes to the Executive of the state. The Executive then gives the or- 
der for their exportation, and takes the bond, &c. 3d, That every 
consideration urged for permitting the departure of the negroes, ap- 
plies to them all; and the letter gives the impression that all had 
gone, which is a material variance from the facts of the case. 4th, 
That the General here expresses his confident belief, that the ne- 
groes, although originally intended for Alabama, would now be 
carried out of the United States; the fair meaning of which is, that 
they would not be carried to Alabama; while his passport authorized 
them to be carried to that territory : But, the great objection to the 
communication is, that it omits to state the material facts which had 
occurred, since the date of the letter of the 25th December, and be- 
fore the date of the letter under consideration, to wit: The arrival 
of the second parcel of Africans, under the direction of Bowen, and 
this, too, after he had had an interview with Bowen, on the arrival 
of the first parcel; and second, the fact, that, at the date of the last 
letter, nearly one-half of the Africans still remained at the agency. 
It is difficult to conceive, that General Mitchell was not aware, that 
these were among the most suspicious facts in the case. They ought, 
therefore, to have been promptly and frankly stated, and accounted 
for. The total omission to notice them, and what is worse, the giv- 
ing an aspect to the case, in both these communications, calculated 
to keep them out of view, and to make an erroneous impression on 
the government as to the true state of the case, is, to say the least of 
it, extremely unfortunate. 

Will it be said that, although General Mitchell, in stating, in this 
last letter, the exportation of these people, uses and repeats the terms 
" the negroes," which are equally applicable to them all, yet, inas- 



31 L 93 l 

much as lie refers to his letter of the 25th of December to the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, he must be considered as alluding to the ne- 
groes therein mentioned? the answer is, that even if this were a 
fair view of the case, (which it certainly is not, General Mitchell 
was then bound to state, as a new and substantive set of facts, the 
arrival of the second parcel, the detention of that parcel, and the 
reason which existed for the discrimination he had made. Charity, 
and even credulity, cannot suppose that he thought these immaterial 
facts, more especially after the sample he has given us of what he 
thought material, in relation to the respectable gentlemen who had 
come to claim these negroes, bringing letters of introduction from 
Generel Gaines. 

The next communication is to the Secretary of War, and bears 
date, Creek x\gency, 18th February, 1818. In this letter he gives a 
very acrimonious account of the proceedings of Mr. M'Intosh and 
Captain Melvin, and says, that " if they had seized only those which 
had been given up on bond and security, under the impression of that 
being an unauthorized proceeding, he should not have complained, 
although he should have conceived their conduct unwarrantable; but 
to seize by force those in my possession, regularly reported to the go- 
vernment, and the commanding officer (Col. BrearlyJ duly notified of 
the fact, and even of the fact too, of the official opinion of the dis- 
trict attorney, being required in the case, and assured by me that 
they should not be removed upon any terms, until that opinion was 
received, or the government should order the course to be taken, I can 
find no apology for their conduct." 

This is the first official intimation from the agent of the fact, that 
any portion of the negroes had been detained at the agency, yet he 
speaks of them as having been regularly reported to the government. 
I should have thought, from the statement, that some communication 
had been made by the agent to the government other than those that 
I have already brought to your view, were it not that he himself, in 
his letters to the Secretary of War of the 25th March, 1818, and 
27th July, 1820, refers to all the communications which he had made 
to the government on this subject, and notices none other of prior 
date to this, under consideration, save only his letter of the 25th De- 
cember, 1817, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and of the 3d Feb- 
ruary, 1818, to the Secretary of War; and in neither of these, as I 
have shown, is there any communication of the fact, that any negroes 
had been detained at the agency, that he alludes, in this statement, 
to his letter of the 25th December, 1817, as constituting the regular 
report to the government, I collect from the assertion which ac- 
companies it, " and the commanding officer duly notified of the 
fact." The commanding officer was Colonel Brearly; and General 
Mitchell has proved, by his son Captain Mitchell, that on the 20th 
or 21st of the month of December. 1817, the General returned to 
Georgia, accompauicd by Captain Thomas and the witness, to spend 
Christmas with his family: that at Fort Hawkins he fell in with 
Colonel Krearly, whom the agent informed of the Africans being at 



C 93 ] 82 

the agency, and of his intention to detain them, and report the case 
to government; and the witness adds, that he knows a letter was 
written to the Secretary of the Treasury on Christmas daij, report- 
ing the negroes, and that he had since seen the Secretary's answer. 
The letter of the 25th December then is the letter relied on, to au- 
thorize the assertion, that the negroes, detained at the agency, had 
been regularly reported to the government; whereas this letter states, 
that he had not detained them, but had ordered Bowen to carry them 
out of the United States: besides, the letter of the 25th December 
could not possibly have had any allusion to the negroes which had 
been detained, for their arrival at the agency occurred after the date 
of that letter; the letter expressly related to the negroes brought 
thither by Bowen himself, and for which he then shewed a bill of sale 
to himself —this was the parcel, according to the description in the 
passport, which had been delivered to Groce; whereas, the last par- 
cel, and consequently that which was detained, was covered by a bill 
of sale to Tobler, the Indian. This representation of General 
Mitchell, that, he had reported, to the government, the negroes de- 
tained at the agency, at the time of M'Intosh's seizure, is so boldly 
made, when he must have known, or at least supposed, that his com- 
munications were here to confront him, that charity might have im- 
puted the statement to a want of recollection; but for the discovery 
of the fact, that the General keeps copies of his correspondence. In 
relation to his letter of the 25th December, I have nothing before 
me except the extract furnished by himself, the original having been 
misplaced; so that if it contained any thing beyond this extract, 
which would have justified the statement in question, (and which ex- 
tract was furnished to the Department of War, for the information 
of that Department, as to what the General done,) the omission to 
insert it is unfortunate. It is not conceivable, however, that this 

is the case. 

Before I leave this letter of the 18th February, it is proper to re- 
mark, that, although we have it here officially announced, for the 
first time, that a part of the negroes had been delivered up, on bond, 
to Groce, and the residue detained at the agency, no reason is yet 
o-iven for the discrimination, much less is any thing said of the fact 
of their having been introduced in separate parcels, and the last 
parcel after the agent had had an interview with Bowen. 

«« It is now insinuated," says General Mitchell in this letter, " as 
an excuse for this flagrant contempt, that I am interested in the ne- 
groes; and, as evidence of the fact, that I have fed them, and had 
them 'at work; and that, whilst on their way to this place, they were 
seen by some one, in {the possession of Indians, who said they were 
taking them to the agency, and a variety of other surmises equally 

futile." . . , . i r xi 

This word surmises is loosely used in this place; tor the circum- 
stances of feeding them, and having some of them at work, toge- 
ther with the acts of distributing articles of clothing among them, 
and administering medicine to the sick, are immediately admitted by 



33 C93] 

the General himself; and as to|the fact of their being met in the pos- 
session of an Indian, who was bringing them to the agency under the 
superior authority of Bowen, and who in fact did bring them there, 
it is in proof, and is not controverted. These were not surmises, 
therefore, but facts; and yet, facts, which, of themselves, (so far as 
feeding, &c. go,) are futile, as to fixing any degree of guilt on 
General Mitchell. The most innocent and honorable man, on whom 
such a body of helpless human beings had been lawlessly thrown, 
would have acted in the same way, while they were necessarily in 
his care. I think, therefore, that no importance is to be attached to 
these facts of feeding, clothing, &c. while the negroes were, necessari- 
ly, at the agency. . 

In this same letter, we meet with General Mitchell's first denial ot 
the charges against him; the first at least communicated to this go- 
vernment. It is in these words: " Sir: I assure you upon my honor, 
I had no interest whatever, directly or indirectly, in the purchase or 
introduction of thosenegroes; neither had I any knowledge or inform- 
ation of the intention >f the parties interested to bring them here, until 
their actual arrival: 9 On first reading this document, I was tran- 
siently struck with the special form of this denial, as not covering 
the whole case. I dismissed it, however, as a subtlety which ought 
not to be permitted to enter into the judicial consideration of such a 
subject, fraught with such serious and affecting personal considera- 
tions; and should have probably thought of it no more, but for the 
perpetual recurrence of the same form of expression, not only in the 
General's other communications, but in the affidavits of his witness- 
es. A coincidence of expression so singular among so many vari- 
ous minds of different orders, naturally excited me to attend to the 
terms; and I perceived, at once, that the truth of the assertion that 
General Mitchell had nothing to do with the original purchase or in- 
troduction of these Africans, and that he was even ignorant of the in- 
tention of the parties to bring them to the agency, until their actual ar- 
rival there, was perfectly compatible with a guilty connection form- 
ed with Bowen, after the arrival of the first parrel, and with that 
connivance which General Gaines had charged on him; and pin-su- 
ing this train of thought, it appeared to me that although there were 
circumstances tending to the belief of a previous general understand- 
ing, at least between Bowen and Mitchell, yet the evidence was 
much more strong to establish the probability of a subsequent connec- 
tion. It is not necessary to stop for the purpose of bringing together 
the instances in which this same form of expression recurs, in the 
letters of General Mitchell and the affidavits of his witnesses; they 
will present themselves as we go along; and if, at least, you shall 
think the criticism more ingenious and severe than solid, you will 
easily throw it out of your consideration of the case. 

The next communication of General Mitchell is a letter of the 
19th February, 1818, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
as I learn by reference; which, however, is not before me. 
5 



[ 93 ] 34 

On the 25th March, 1818, the agent addressed another letter to 
the Secretary of War, in which he answers various charges that had 
been preferred against him hy General Jackson, and among others 
this charge of the African negroes. In this, he goes into a state- 
ment as to those delivered to Groce; censures Colonel Brearly for 
certain misstatements, which he charges him to have made on the 
subject, and this the more severely, because he says Colonel Brear- 
ly was fully informed of all his proceedings; and, among other 
things, of his having declined bonding any more, after the forty-se- 
ven, "in consequence of understanding that there was some difference 
of opinion as to the proper course to be pursued with regard to them.' 9 
This is the first explanation of the cause why the last parcel was de- 
tained; but as they were in his possession when the first parcel was 
delivered to Groce, we are yet to he informed why they were not de- 
livered at the same time. 

This passage, however, calls up a still more serious question. 
When did this difference of opinion occur, and when was it made 
known to General Mitchell? When he wrote to the Secretary of War 
on the 3d February, he suggests no such difference of opinion; he 
represents the case as quite an easy one, and gives an impression that 
the whole of the negroes had been sent out of the United States; it 
was only four, or at the most, five days afterwards, that they were 
seized by Mr. M'Intosh; for the General's letter to his son, on this 
subject, annexed to the affidavit of the son, hears date on the 8th of 
February. This difference of opinion, then, which had changed the 
General's course as to the negroes, must have occurred and been 
made known to him between the 3d and 8th of February, of which 
there is no evidence in the case, and, I fear, no probability, in fact. 
Even in his letter of the 18th, he does not place the past detention 
of these negroes, on any such difference of opinion as this; but on 
the ground of his having reported the case to the government (by 
his letter of the 25th December) and his waiting their orders, or the 
opinion of the District Attorney. 

In the letter now under consideration (25th March, 1818,) the 
agent says to the Secretary of War, *• Permit me to reiterate the as- 
surance already given you, that I not only had no interest in the pur- 
chase of these negroes, but was entirely ignorant of the purchase and in- 
troduction of them, till brought to the agency." In Gen. Mitchell's let- 
ter of the 28th April, 1818, to the Secretary of the Treasury (o! 
which an extract, furnished by the General, is before me) he takes no 
notice of the detention of a part of these negroes at the agency, nor 
of any such difference of opinion as that which he assigns in his let- 
ter of the 25th of March, to the Secretary of War; on the contra- 
ry, he vindicates the course taken in bonding and sending out the 
negroes, as the only course, as to the propriety of which he speaks 
cf uo opposing opinions. 

In this letter, he also says, " As to the purchase and introduction oi 
' ose negroes, I give you my solemn assurance that I had neither 
vledge of, nor participation in either," 



35 [ 93 ] 

Here the communications of General Mitchell end. until the 
charge was revived by Governor Clarke, and presented in such a 
form as made it the duty of government to examine it by evidence. A 
judicial investigation of the subject had now been barred by the act 
of limitation of the United States. An attempt was made to insti- 
tute such a trial before the circuit court of the United States in 
Georgia, but was stopped at the threshold by the court, on the 
ground of the bar by the act of limitation. The grand jury, how- 
ever, took up the subject on general grounds, and founded a present- 
ment on it. The legislature of the state, too, expressed its indigna- 
tion at the illicit continuance of the slave trade, in a report, which, 
together with the presentment of the grand jury, before mentioned, 
and the sentence of the court, have been communicated by Governor 
Clarke, and are now before me. The government, desirous in a case 
so deeply interesting to the country on one hand, and to the indivi- 
dual, one of the officers of government thus accused, on the other, 
required that the facts should be presented in the form of affidavits, 
taken on notice; a direction which was so imperfectly executed, that 
it was repeated, and in the mean time both the governor of Geor- 
gia and General Mitchell were mutually furnished with copies of the 
evidence which had been communicated by the other. 

The first communication of General Mitchell with which I meet 
in this new series, is his letter to the Secretary of War, dated the 
27th July, 1820. This letter accompanied the General's original evi- 
dence, and comments on that, and on the accusing evidence. 

On the fourth page of this letter, he makes the first communica- 
tion to the government with which 1 have met, of the separate par- 
cels of Africans brought in by Bowen, in succession. He again ad- 
mits the interview with Bowen, on the arrival of the first parcel, but 
says that he remained only one night at the agency, " consequently, 
had no time or opportunity to make any arrangement with him on the 
subject." What General Mitchell is represented as having said to 
Loving was quite enough, and could have teen said in a very few 
minutes. He proceeds, " Neither did he know that I had seized the 
first parcel of his negroes, until the arrival of the last parcel, when 
I informed him of the fact, and detained the whole; that is to say, 
that General Mitchell had seized the first parcel, but kept Bowen in 
ignorance of that fact, till the arrival of the last parcel, which was 
about the first week in January, when he informed him of the fact 
and detained the whole; this statement is supported by the evidence 
of Capt. Bowen, Capt. Mitchell and Capt. Thomas; but is perfect- 
ly irreconcilable with the agent's letter of the 25th December, to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, in which he represents himself as having 
declined to detain any of them, but having ordered Bowen to take the 
whole of them out of the United States. 

In the course of this letter, Gen. Mitchell comments on the evi- 
dence furnished by Governor Clarke, and before I take up the Gene- 
ral's own evidence, in order. I think it proper to state what he has 



[ 93 ] 36 

said in regard to the two first witnesses presented in support of the 
charge, Loving and Woodward. 

In regard to Loving, he says, in substance, that lie has no re- 
collection of any such conversation as Mr. L. relates; that Mr. Lo- 
ving was a stranger; and that it is very improbable that he would 
ha\c given advice to a stranger, which he would not have given to 
one of his own family. He states, also, that he has heard from 
a gentleman of veracity that the very conversation which he re- 
presents himself to have had with him, (Mitchell,) he had with that 
gentleman, who replied precisely in, the Language which Loving has at- 
tributed to the General; and the General leaves it to any man of sense 
to determine whether it be reasonable that he would have held such a 
conversation with a stranger. Who this gentleman of veracity is, we 
are not informed by General Mitchell. We learn, however, from 
the affidavit of A. Erwin, that it was Capt. Thomas, one of the Ge- 
neral's assistants at the agency, as we have seen; and Mr. Erwin 
further states, that, on his suggesting the probability of this mistake 
to Loving, he had appeared much mortified, and expressed his regret 
at having given this information. The whole of which statement 
Loving flatly denies in a subsequent affidavit, and declares to be a 
falsehood destitute of all foundation. 

But these remarks of General Mitchell suggest the following re- 
flections: Why should any man of sense pronounce it improbable 
that he should have held such a conversation, or given such advice 
to a stranger? There can be but one answer, so far as I 'perceive, 
which is, that the advice was criminal, or the course advised illegal; 
for, if neither, there can be no reason why Gen. Mitchell should not 
have held such a conversation with a stranger as soon as with any 
other. Gen. Mitchell, then, was aware, in July, 1817, of the crimi- 
nality or illegality of this course, and yet his acts, with regard to 
Bowen, and the Africans imported by him, arc substantially in unison 
with the conversation which is imputed to him by Loving. 

Again, is it probable that, in a case of so much importance, Loving 
should have mistaken Capt. Thomas for the agent, and, still more, 
is it probable that Thomas should have rendered the very answers 
which Loving attributes to Mitchell; that Thomas should have ad- 
vised Loving to bring Africans to the agency, and that he, Thomas, 
would protect them there, and give facilities for their sale at the re- 
serve, &c. more especially, when we are told by Thomas, himself, 
that the agent .whose power at the agency was sovereign,) had uni- 
formly advised him to have nothing to do with such a business, for, 
that those who did would not only involve themselves in trouble, but 
would also destroy their reputations? The assumption of these answers 
by Capt. Thomar, may be an evidence of gallant self-devotion in be- 
half of a friend, but, I confess, the statement surpasses my credulity. 
Loving's character is most respectably supported; and, if his evi- 
dence required any extrinsic circumstances to render it probable, 
"those circumstances would, I think, be found in the conduct of the 
agent himself, in the affair of Capt. Bowen. 



37 [ 93 ] 

With respect to the evidence of T. Woodward, which, as you will 
recollect, is a hearsay statement only, from Colonel Howard, General 
Mitchell observes, that, as Mr. Woodward is of respectable family 
and connexions, and some of them his particular friends, he will just 
observe that Col. Joseph Howard, from whom, he says, he had his 
information, is living on the Alabama, and is certainly better evi- 
dence than Mr. Woodward. He thinks that Col. Howard will not 
support the statement of the witness as to bringing Africans into the 
United States, in violation of law. " I have no doubt (says he) but 
that I have had conversations with many upon this subject, for, at 
ojie time, it was much spoken of, and some have reduced it to prac- 
tice, while others, like myself, have only talked of it." 

Mr. Woodward's statement of Col. Howard's conversation is no 
evidence which would be received in a court of judicature had it even 
been on oath. Not being even on oath, it ought not to have been 
offered. Why the affidavit of Col. Howard has not been taken on 
either side, I am unable to conceive. Gen. Mitchell was not bound 
to take it, and yet it is a matter of surprise to me that, knowing the 
residence of the witness, his high standing, and the use which had 
been made of his alleged conversation, the just sensibility which Gen. 
Mitchell seems to feel for his own character, had not impelled him 
to call on Col. Howard to rescue him from this imputation. 

The words which I have quoted from Gen. Mitchell above seem to 
me to mean, in their fair and obvious sense, that Gen. Mitchell had, 
at one time, talked of embarking in the business. They are used in 
relation to the conversation which Woodward, on the report of Col. 
Howard, imputes to him; a conversation Which implied his disposi- 
tion, after his acceptance of the agency, to engage in such an enter- 
prise, and to furnish funds for it. At this time, too, he had reason 
to believe that the affidavit of Col. Howard might be taken against 
liim, and how it would result was yet uncertain. 

It was provident, therefore, to anticipate any result of such an 
affidavit by an explanation. The words are to be construed in re- 
ference to the occasion and circumstances in which they are used. 
When, therefore, he says " I have no doubt but that I have had con- 
versations with many persons upon this subject, for, at one time, it 
was much spoken of, and some have reduced it to practice, while others, 
like myself , have only talke&of it," I understand him to mean, " while 
others, like myself, only talked of doing it," which amounts to an 
admission that he had at one time talked of doing it, and is substan- 
tially all that either Woodward or Loving state. 

1 proceed to General Mitchell's testimony in the order in which 
he has offered it. 

William Bow en. Affidavit, No. I. He left fort Hawkins, where 
he had resided for some time, in July, 18 17; went to South Carolina 
to visit his friends; after a short time, proceeded by Augusta to Sa- 
vannah; here he entered into a mercantile partnership with Stan- 
tenbry & Thorn, in a store, to be kept by Bowen, in Milledgeville. 
Having selected his goods, and while employed in forwarding them, 



[ 93 ] 38 

he was informed by a friend of the great speculations which were to 
be made in sugar and coffee, at Amelia Island; determined to pro- 
crastinate the opening of goods in Milledgeville till he could visit 
Amelia Island, which he does; disappointed in the price of sugar 
and coffee, and having been left by the vessel in which he intended 
to return to the Main, he is detained in the island, 'and, during his 
detention, a cargo of negroes arrived in one of Aury's priva- 
teers, which he purchases with funds furnished wholly by the credit 
of Erwin & Co. and Stanterbry & Thorn. He then details his jour- 
ney with the first parcel of these negroes to the agency, where he is 
received by Capt. Thomas, who advises him to proceed on his route 
before the arrival of Gen Mitchell, who, if he found the negroes 
there, would probably interfere with them; but this, he told Thomas, 
was impossible, as the negroes were worn down with cold, fatigue, 
and hunger, and could not move till their strength was recruited 
and he could procure better transportation; besides, he told him he 
had left a number of the smallest ones behind, more exposed than he 
had expected. 

Finally, having arranged with Thomas to supply provisions for 
the first parcel, he returns for the second, [not a word of his inter- 
view with General Mitchell; it is obvious that this is kept studiously 
out of sight.] He then proceeds to detail his operations with the 
second parcel of negroes, admits that he wrote the letter from Drum- 
mond's Bluff, but this was without the consent or knowledge of 
General Mitchell, it was purely to secure, the passage of the proper- 
ty, should it meet difficulty; he never intended, after the arrival of 
the negroes at the agency, for that letter to be produced or delivered 
to the agent, and had instructed the bearer to destroy it on his arri- 
val. After seeing the bearer of it, after the negroes had arrived, he 
asked him for the letter, and was answered, that it was lost in the 
woods; and, thinking that the letter would never be found, he was 
satisfied. On his arrival at the agency, he was informed by General 
Mitchell that he would detain the negroes until he could be better 
satisfied with the circumstances of their transportation through the 
Creek nation. He then informed General Mitchell that he had pur- 
chased the negroes in Camden, and intended going westward with 
them. [General Mitchell, in his letter of the 25th December, 181T, to 
the Secretary of the Treasury, says, that Bowen gave him this infor- 
mation at their Jirst interview; that is, on the arrival of the first par- 
cel, and shewed him the bill of sale]. General Mitchell declared that 
he should detain the negroes 'till he could hear from the Government 
on the subject. Finally, Jared E. Groce came to the agency with a 
letter of introduction to Bowen from James Erwin, and Groce, as 
the agent of Erwin & Co., and, for the purpose of securing the 25,000 
dollars which they had advanced, entered into bond with Bowen, to 
cany out of the United States as many of the negroes as he wished, 
who were to be under his control, as collateral security to the Er- 
wins; a selection of forty-seven was made out of the whole parcel, 
and delivered to Groce on bond, as already stated. Bowen returned 



39,, [93 J 

to Georgia to procure security for bonding the rest, which was su- 
perceded by the seizure made by M'Intosh. lie then states w hat was 
done with the negroes after their seizure, which is irrelevant to our 
inquiry. He then avers that Gen. Mitchell never had any know- 
ledge of the purchase or introduction of these negroes into the U. States; 
that he paid not one cent towards the purchase, that the whole sum 
was raised through the aid of the beforementioned firm; and that 
General Mitchell knew nothing about it until the negroes were taken to 
4he agency, and reported btj him to the Government. That, but for the 
interference of Gen. Mitchell, he would probably have had his pro- 
perty safe in West Florida, where it was intended that they should he 
carried. " Any imputation, therefore, says Bdwen, that General 
Mitchell was concerned with me in the purchase and introduction of 
that property is mere conjecture only." 

Before I proceed to the cross-examination of this witness, I will 
remark that, long before the taking of this deposition, not only the 
letter from Drummond's Bluff, buUhe two letters purporting to have 
been written by Bowen to Gen. Mitchell, from Milledgeville, had 
been before the public, and had produced considerable excitement. 
The two last letters, if genuine, placed the guilt of General Mitchell 
beyond all doubt, and were consequently resisted by the General and 
his friends, by every means which they could command. The Gene- 
ral had denied, on oath, that he had ever seen such letters; his son 
Captain Mitchell had denied, on oath, that he had ever given Moore 
that direction to search his father's desk for letters from Arbuthuot, 
from which the discovery was alleged to have proceeded; and both 
Captain Mitchell and the General's clerk, imlay Vanscriver, had 
sworn that they had never seen such letters in the General's desk, 
or elsewhere, and that they must have seen those, if they had been 
there. Bowen had denied the authenticity of the letters in a hand 
bill, which is annexed to his affidavit, and declared them base fabri- 
cations. The reputation of William Moore, the alleged discoverer of 
these letters, was assailed with great vehemence. He was accused of 
having forged an order for money, from one Timothy Barnard; of 
having forged a bill of sale from Tobler for the last parcel of negroes, 
and having attempted to suborn witnesses to attest it. But still the 
oath of Bowen, denying that he had written these letters, was wanting. 
When, therefore, in the body of the affidavit before me, his mind was 
called to this subject by his admission of the letter from Drummond's 
Bluff, it is surprizing tbat he did not avail himself of the same so- 
lemn occasion to do justice to himself and Gen. Mitchell, by denying 
the two last letters which he had already denied in his published 
hand bill. This, however, he does uot do: he says not one word of 
these letters, in the body of his affidavit} which is the whole of his 
voluntary statement: and to increase the suspicion arising from this 
circumstance, when, on his cross examination, he is directl) inter- 
rogated as to these letters, he twice evades the question, altogether, 
and, each time, so exactly in the same words, that it is extremely 
difficult for the most candid man to resist the conviction, that the 
evasion, as well as the form of it, was premeditated and settled. 



[ 93 "1 40 

He is asked by Governor Clarke, did you not write the letter, or 
one similar to it, of the 7th March, 1818, to the agent, General O. 
B. Mitchell, which was published in the Journal sometime since, 
and which Win. Moore states he copied, &c? 

The answer is — " I have already denied tlie authenticity of that letter ', 
and I consider Moore aforgerer." 

He is then asked, did you not write the letter of the 23d March, 
1818, &c? 

His answer is — " 1 have also denied the authenticity oj that letter, and 
I answer as above." 

It was true lie had already denied the authenticity of those letters, 
but not on oath; it was in a handbill. And it might be true he con- 
sidered Moore a forger, in regard to the two acts of forgery already 
mentioned, of which he had been publicly accused — the order from 
Barnard, and the bill of sale from Tobier. Were Bowen now to 
state, on oath, that he did write those letters, he could not be convicted 
of perjury on the strength of those answers; for he has not here de- 
nied them on oath, nor has he said any thing at all incompatible 
with the fact that; he did write them. 

Are these the terms which would have been used by any man who 
was in truth innocent of the charge of having written those letters? 
For my own part, the evasion appears to me su gross and palpable, 
and withal so studied, that 1 consider it as very little short of a con- 
fession, that he did write the letters. 

On this cross-examination, he states that he did " once give Gen. 
Mitchell a certificate that he was not concerned in the purchase or in- 
troduction of these negroes into the United States." 

He is asked " Do you not know that the agent expressed himself 
in a way from which yon inferred his permission to convey the second 
gang of Jifricans to the agency?" 

The answer is — " He never expressed any approbation to me.'* 
Here is another evasion; the question was not as to the expression oi 
approbation. In the rest;of his^cross-examination, he states, in sub- 
stance, that he does not know that Genera! Mitchell claims any part 
of the Africans that had been brought to the agency in his own righi. 

He never had any conversation with General Mitchell as to the 
profits to be made on speculations in Africans, previous to his taking 
the Jifricans to the agency. 

General Mitchell might have been apprised of Long's taking off 
the five negroes, for all he knows. The witness refuses to answer a 
question concerning Jared E. Groce, (which stands connected with 
the authenticity of one of the last of the letters before mentioned) on 
the ground that it relates to his and Grace's private affairs. 

In answer to General Mitchell, he states the interview which he 
had with the Governor at the time of his • onfessing that he wrote the 
letter from Drummond's Bluff. He understood from his excellency, 
and, probably, some of the other gentlemen, that the object of the 
inquiry was not to injure him, as most of them were friendly to [him, 
but to ascertain General Mitchell's connection in the affair. He does 
not reelect that any particular promise was made him. 



41 [ 93 ] 

He says, on further examination, that General Mitchell did not 
know from him that he intended to carry the second gang of Africans 
to the agency in the winter of 1317, 1818. 

Being asked whether the agent, or some one for him, did not pur- 
chase or come to an understanding with him for some of the Africans? 

He answers, " the agent did not purchase any of me. I had many 
offers by sundry persons to sell, but not for the express use or impli- 
ed use, as I understand, of General Mitchell. I invariably declined 
selling any of them to any one." 

Andrew Erwin'' s affidavit, No. 2. This is a very long and verbose 
affidavit — to give you an idea of it, although the witness knows no- 
thing personally of the guilt or innocence of General Mitchell, five 
folio pages of the affidavit are employed in giving us a history of the 
oscillations of the witness' mind as to General Mitchell's guilt. 
The number of these vibrations, and the causes which produced them, 
are detailed with a minuteness and prolixity rather amusing than 
instructive; until at last, the witness, on the representation of General 
Mitchell and Captain Bow en, settles down in the conviction that the 
General was entirely innocent " of any concern, interest, or partici- 
pation, in the purchase or introduction of the negroes alluded to." 
According to this witness, Groce also is innocent — not only innocent, 
but, it seems, Mr. Erwin had some difficulty in appeasing the virtu- 
ous indignation of Mr. Groce, upon the discovery that his partners 
had been concerned in a breach of the laws. " I convinced him, I 
believe," says the witness, with the utmost apparent simplicity, " of 
my innocence in any such trade." To make sure work of it, however, 
he sent or wrote for his son, James Erwin, to Savannah, to explain 
the true situation of the business. James Erwin then came to Au- 
gusta, and while there, Mr. Groce returned, and James Erwin then 
expressed his innocence in the business, as above. This Mr. Groce, 
whose moral delicacy the Messrs. Erwins manifested so much soli- 
citude to soothe, is the same Jared E. Groce, whose conversation 
with Mr. Breithaupt has been already detailed. Andrew Erwin 
swears, in the most positive manner, to use his own words, " That 
Jared E. Groce had no interest in the property," meaning the ne- 
groes. Why then did Andrew Erwin, in his letter to Gen. Mitchell, 
by Colonel Morgan, bind the firm of Erwin', Groce, & Co. to any 
amount, without limit, which Colonel Morgan might choose to draw 
for, in his negotiations wjth regard to negroes? 

Will it be said, when l.i wrote that letter he was ignorant of the 
fact that Mr. Groce was. not interested? But we are told that there 
were two firms, Erwin, Groce, & Co. at Augusta, in which Mr. 
Groce was interested; and Erwin & Co. at Savannah, in which Mr. 
Groce was not interested; and Andrew Erwin does not profess to 
have been ignorant when he wrote the letter that the funds had been 
advanced by Erwin & Co. at Savannah, in which Mr. Groce was 
not interested. By what right, then, did he use the name of Groce 
in that letter? The circumstance is calculated to infuse a strong 
suspicion that the witness knows more on this subject than he, has 



[ 93 ] 42 

thought proper to disclose. His guilt or innocence, however, is not 
the question, except so far as it may affect his credit as a witness. 
His primary object, and what may be called the business of his affi- 
davit, is to exculpate himself from any charge of being involved in 
this business; and, in this point of view, it is unfortunate for Mr. 
Erwin, that, in a case so deeply affecting his character, he has not 
preserved the letter from a Mr. Thomas, who now resides near Mil- 
ledgeville, then, perhaps near the agency, from whom he received his 
first intelligence on this subject, nor any copy of his letter in reply, 
and that the original answer, also, has been lost by Mr. Thomas; 

The only facts material to Gen. Mitchell, which this witness states, 
are, 1st. The fact that the whole purchase money for the negroes 
was advanced by Erwin & Co. and, consequently, that Gen. Mitchell 
is innocent of having made any pecuniary contribution to the pur- 
chase. 

2d. The circumstances which he states to impugn the credit of 
Loving, to which I have already adverted. 

With respect to the first, however, he admits that for one half of 
the advance, individual notes were placed in the hands of his son; 
these notes were anonymously mentioned; why they are so, is not ex- 
plained; there may be some motive of mercantile delicacy in the case, 
but without mentioning names it would have been easy to have said 
that no note in which General Mitchell's name appeared, was among 
them, and, in a case like this, it would have been better to have done 
so, even if the caution had been over abundant. 

James Erwin's affidavit, No. 3. This witness supports the state- 
ments of Bowen, as to the partnership with Stantenbry & Thorn; as 
to the information which carried Bowen to Amelia Island; as to the 
fact that all the funds were furnished by hrwin & Co, He gives also 
his letters of instruction to Bowen, the first sentence of which is, 
«' Buy all and every thing you are sure of making money on." He sup- 
ports Bowen in the assertion that the funds sent were vested in ne- 
groes, and, before the sale was closed, he was consulted by the vendor as 
to the authority of Bowen to draw on him for the amount. That he as- 
sured the vendor Bowen' s bill woxdd be good. And, from the impossi- 
bility of communicating even by express with General '■ itchell, 8fc. as 
well as from Boxvcn's private, confidential, andpositivc communications , 
lie is confident that General Mitchell had no knowledge of the purchase 
and introduction of those negroes. 

Joseph Thorn's affidavit, No. 4. In strict accordance with James 
Erwin, he also is of opinion, for the reasons he gives, that it is im- 
possible General Mitchell could have had any knowledge or interest 
whatsoever in the purchase or introduction of those negroes into the 
United States. 

Colonel G. Morgan's affidavit, No. 5. The effect of this evidence has 
been, as to all substantial points, before stated. This witness states 
that "from the best information he could get at the agency," with what 
he had been told by James Erwin and his father, James Erwin's 
advancing money to Bowen, as well as from a knowledge of their situ- 



43 [ 93 ] 

ation at that time, it is his opinion, decidedly, that General Mitchell 
had no interest, directly or indirectly, in the purchase, ownership, 
and introduction of those African negroes." 

John S. Thomas* affidavit, JV>. 6. lie supports all the statements of 
Bowen, Andrew Erwin, and General Mitchell, which could be sup- 
po3ed to fall within the sphere of his observation, and gives it as his 
decided conviction that General Mitchell not only had no interest or 
concern in the purchase or introduction of the negroes, but was entirely 
ignorant of both. He then states the advice which General Mitchell 
had given him, to have nothing to do with the purchase of Africans, 
&c. " for those who did would not only experience pecuniary loss, but 
destroy their reputation." Sound advice, which proves that General 
Mitchell was aware of the illegality and disrepute of such proceedings. 
This John S. Thomas is the Captain Thomas who belonged to 
General Mitchell's family at the agency. The deposition opens with 
saying " Being called upon by the Governor of Georgia, by autho- 
rity, as he states, from the Secretary of State, &c; importing that 
the evidence has been given in the presence, and under the superin- 
tendence, of the Governor. This appears not to have been the fact. 
It is certified by H. Allen, who signs himself J. J. C. that, on the 6th 
of March, 1820, having been called upon by one of the Secretaries of 
the Executive Department of Georgia, to attend at the Executive 
Chamber in the State House, for the purpose of taking some deposi- 
tions, John Sherwood Thomas was called, and, appearing, refused 
to be qualified, or to give evidence in regard to his knowledge of the 
participation of the Indian agent, D. B. Mitchell, in the illicit intro- 
duction of Africans into the United States, as he said, *« on account 
of some communication or writing made by himself to one of the parties 
which he wished first to secure." 

It is here proper to give General Mitchell's view of the subject of 
Captain Thomas' reluctance to give evidence in the case. It is in 
these words: "The Governor, I understand, has resorted to various 
expedients to justify his conduct to Captain Thomas; and, among 
the rest, has obstinately charged him with refusing to give his testi- 
mony. But, if Captain Thomas would condescend to make a state- 
ment of the facts as they really occurred, it would cover the Govern- 
or with shame and confusion, if he is capable of feeling either the 
one or the other. But Captain Thomas is diffident and unassuming, 
and the Governor, presuming upon that, and an intimacy of long 
standing between himself and the family of Captain Thomas, he 
thought he could manage the Captain as he pleased, by dictating to 
him the testimony he should give. His first effort was to draw from 
the Captain a declaration that he knew nothing about my transac- 
tions with the Africans; but finding that he was not to be surprised 
into an assertion of a falsehood, he then changed his tone, and en- 
deavored to dragoon him into his measures. The integrity of Cap- 
tain Thomas, however, baffled all the arts of his Excellency, and he 
then thought it necessary to throw a shade over his testimony." 
I have before had occasion, sir, to call your attention to the ex* 



[ 93 ] 44 

treme inconveniencies under which strangers to the witnesses must la- 
bor in deciding any question of fact, depending on their characters. 
How impossible would it he, to infer this diffidence and want of as- 
sumption in the character of Captain Thomas, from the following 
statement: 

" Executive Office, Georgia, 

" Millcdgeville, 3d April, 1820. 
"We, whose names are hereunto annexed, do hereby certify, that 
on this day, ahout 3 o'clock, P. M. Captain John S. Thomas entered 
the Executive office, and inquired from his Excellency Governor 
Clarke, if he had understood him (Thomas) to have said, when 
summoned to testify to the Executive office, sometime since, [point- 
ing back to the time mentioned by Mr. Allen,] that he declined to 
give evidence, then, from having some paper, or document of some 
kind, in the hands of General Mitchell? The Governor replied, that 
he (Thomas) had declined, alleging that " he had a paper in the 
hands of one of the parties, which he wished first to withdraw, as it 
might injure him," and that the Governor understood from his (Cap- 
tain Thomas') expression, that the paper spoken of was in the hands 
of Mitchell. Thomas then rejoined, that he did not think the Go- 
vernor was light; that he thought he had been mistaken; that he did 
not state, or intend it to be understood, that it was in Mitchell's hands; 
but in the hands of one of the parties interested; some conversation 
then ensued, and the Governor then mentioned, that he, Thomas, had 
promised again to call at a particular day and give his evidence, and 
had failed to do it. This was rudely denied by Thomas, and re-as- 
serted by the Governor; and, on Thomas' assuming an insolent tone 
and manner, the Governor inquired, if he had come to the office with 
an intention to insult him; and, if that was his intention, he, the 
Governor, wished him to retire. After some further insolent deport- 
ment, he said, he (Thomas) would retire, and on doing so, exclaimed, 
in a loud and menacing tone, " By the eternal God, 1 will have satis- 
faction out of you one day or other.'" 

" In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our signatures. 

" DANIEL HUGHES, 
"WM. F. STEELE." 

Wm. ■ c . Mitchell. Affidavit JV*o. 7. This witness declares his con- 
viction of the innocence of the agent; and I hope he is sincere. It 
is l.iie evidence of a son in relation to his father. The document will 
be before you; and I forbear further comment. 

James Moss, affidavit JVfo. 8. Was at the agency at the time of 
the arrival of the Africans; had frequent conversations with Bowen, 
Long, asid Captain Mitchell, and from none of them was induced to 
believe that General Mitchell was, in any way, engaged in the pur- 
chase or introduction of the negroes into the state. He impugns the 
credit of John Lambert, a witness on the other side, because he had 
spoken, ignorantly, from hearsay; and because Lambert told him 



45 [ 98 ] 

there were things put into his affidavit that he did not consent to have 
put in it, &c. 

John Binion. Affidavit No. 9. He was a captain of cavalry on 
the Flint river, stationed at the agency, in January, 1818. Observ- 
ing the Africans at the agency, lie asked General Mitchell if they 
were for sale? to which he replied, that they were not, for he had 
put his thumb upon them; meaning thereby, as he explained, that the 
agent had taken them into his possession, and reported them to the go- 
vernment; and that, consequently, he would permit no sale of them. 

Colonel Br early. Affidavit No. 10. This witness is neutral; he 
knows that the Africans were at the agency; but he knows nothing 
of General Mitchell's guilt or innocence. 

M' Queen M'Intosh. No. 11. This purports to be an original let- 
ter from Mr. M'Intosh; to whom addressed does not appear. At the 
foot of it is this statement: " This letter, and the extract from M'ln- 
tosh's report, which I have quoted, were sent to me by a friend. 

" D. B. M." 

The letter expresses M'Intosh's opinion, that he was entitled to 
one-half of the negroes seized. The motives of M'Intosh in making 
the seizure, are foreign to the question of the agent's guilt. 

John Oliphant. Affidavit No. 12. This is the same witness whose 
evidence has been exhibited in support of the charge. This affida- 
vit is subsequent to the former; and the witness here complains that 
the magistrates, on the former occasion, would not insert that he had 
denied the explanation of the red strings, from the negroes, <§-c. 

Thomas Rodney. Affidavit No. 13. The witness was employed 
about the agency. About the day before Gen. Mitchell's departure 
to spend Christmas with his family (the Christmas of 1817,) Gen. 
Mitchell called the witness and directed that, during his absence, 
the witness should have an eye upon the Africans; that they had been 
brought in contrary to law; and that witness must not suffer any one 
to touch the negroes during his absence, for that he meant to report them 
to the government, and they must remain for further orders, 8fc. 

Let this testimony, offered by Gen. Mitchell, be compared with 
his letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, written a few days after- 
wards, to wit, on Christmas day. 

George Sterison. Affidavit No. 14. This witness charges William 
Moore with an attempt to suborn him as a witness to a bill of sale 
from Tobler, &c. 

James Thompson. Affidavit No. 15. To the same effect. This 
man is said by Governor Clarke to be a discharged convict from the 
Pennsylvania penitentiary; and this to the knowledge of General 
Mitchell, when he took his testimony; which I do not understand the 
General as denying. 

Timothy Barnard. Affidavit No. 16. The witness accuses Wm. 
Moore of forging an order for money, in his name; and states, that 
Moore and Mr. Humphreys (a justice of peace of the state of Geor- 
gia,) had endeavored to prevail upon him to swear to the contrary; 
and he believed would forge an affidavit in his name to that effect. 



[93] 



46 



The counter affidavit, with the statement of Mr. Humphreys, will 
be found among the papers furnished by Gov. Clarke, and by him 
numbered 17. 

Win. S. Mitchell. Affidavit *Vo. 17.") I have already given the 

Imlay Vanscriver. Affidavits. 18. J* effect of these papers. Their 
tendency is to show, that Moore could not have found in Gen. Mitch- 
ell's desk, the two letters from Bowen, of which he professes to have 
furnished copies. 

Lodowick Ashley. Affidavit JVfc. 19. Immaterial. A copy of a 
deposition in an admiralty proceeding, concerning these negroes, in 
the name of Miguel De Castre, against ninety-four African negroes. 
The proceeding must have been fictitious. The affidavit is not sub- 
stantially valiant from that formerly presented from the same 
witness. 

I have thus endeavored to extract from this vast mass of commu- 
nications and documents, all the facts which appear to me to be ma- 
terial. In the laborious operation, however, of examining upwards 
of seventy separate documents, and some of them very long, and then 
comparing them together throughout, and of connecting and com- 
bining the circumstances, dissevered and scattered, as they are, 
through such a dark and extensive wilderness, some important cir- 
cumstances may have escaped me; and I may have thought some im- 
portant, which you may deem inconsiderable. It will be of some 
assistance to you, however, to have had the case broken, even in this 
imperfect manner; and any errors, that I may have committed, will 
be easily corrected, in your own examination of it. 

You must, I take it for granted, have been struck with the force 
of the three letters alleged to have been written by Bowen to Gen. 
Mitchell: (that from Drummond's Bluff, and the two from Milledge- 
ville.) It will be proper, therefore, to examine the ground on which 
the probability or improbability of those documents rests, and the 
answers that have been given to them by the parties interested. 

1. Letter from Drummond's Bluff. 

On the 2d November, 1819, when Bowen made his acknowledg- 
ment to Governor Clarke, that he had written this letter, no solu- 
tion of it, favorable to the innocence of General Mitchell, occurred 
to him; for if it had, the solicitude which he has uniformly discovered 
to defend General Mitchell, even, at his own expense, can leave no 
doubt that he would have suggested it. 

On the 4th November, 1819, when he published his hand-bill, he 
says " The letter wrote at Drummond's Bluff was written by me: 
I wrote it, without the consent or knowledge of General Mitchell," 
but still no reason for writing it is mentioned. As this hand bill was 
intended for the express purpose of vindicating General Mitchell, 
this was the time, and this the occasion, that he should have given 
an explanation of the purpose, consistent with General Mitchell's 
innocence, if he could. Bowen is, obviously, a shrewd and acute 



ti C m ] 

and be knew that the world would not be satisfied with being 
told, tfcat he wrote that letter, without the knowledge or consent of 
General Mitchell: this was saying nothinr. : vas never pre- 

tended that General Mitchell was at Druraraond's Bluff on the : 
December , 1817, to know or consent to the writing of that ler 
nor was it at all material to the question of a guilty connection be- 
tween Bowen and Mitchell, that General Mitchell should have con- 
sented, by anticipation, to the writing of such a letter, or that the 
arrangement which occasioned it (1 it, the sending on the last par- 
cel by Tobler; should have been made, and provided far, be: 
E left the agency. When Bowen. therefore, was stating, in his 

hand-bill, that be wrote that letter without General Mitchell's know- 
ledge or consent, be could not bat know, that the next question, 
which woald occur at once to firing mind, would be, 

• w ., Then, did you write it;'' And this question material 

for him to have answered in this hand bill, at least, if any satisfac- 
tory answer was at hand Such an omission, on such an occasion, 

- .ties the conclusion, that he had no answer at band, but that one 
was yet to be sought for. 

:he 5th day of June. 1S2<>, when he gave his deposition, be 
J think of no better solution of this difficulty, than «• that it was 
pwrdm to secure the passage of the property, sh ou ld it mutt difficulty," 
1 I on, . - answered, and with a force which 1 confess I cannot re-.-:, 
that the i not at all adapted to that purpose; it is. as you 1 

perceiTe on referring to it. an open avowal, that the negroes were 
smuggled in from Amelia Island, and states Bo wen's apprehensions 
that they would be seized, before they could be carried through to 
the agency. Suppose Tobler and his party to have been stopped, un- 
der a suspicion that t A . ans had been smuggled in, would the 
production of that letter, w hich confessed the very fact of smuggling, 
have removed the suspicion: Is it not manifest, that its produc 1 
i -:ead of insuring protection, would have insured the seizure of the 
whole party: Had Bowen been devising a letter for the purpose he 
mentions, he has sense enough to have devised a very different one 
from this. There is, in this letter, a minuteness of confidential de- 
tails, a friendly familiarity of speculation and advice, exactly ad:. :- 
ed to the supposed relation be: - B jwen and Mitchell, but to: 
an adapted, and most flagrantly hostile, to the purpose avowed. 

Besides, Tobler was furnished with a bill of sale for the negroes 
to himself: for what was this intended: Surely to protect tkcmx, in 
his own right, if he should meet with difficulty. Thus he was do 
armed: the only misfortune being, that the one weapon was at direct 
war with the other, arid that they reciprocally destroyed the eft 
hotr L»ile the bill of sale affirmed the negroes to be Tob^ 

the letter shewed them to be Bowe 

Bowen further afl :A he never intended this letter to be de- 

<>eneral Mitchell, and that he so directed the bearer. 
'■ W'ny, then, did 1 - - „ 

bit: and no ntiber - - 



[ 93 "J 48 

I have no doubt that the letter was intended to be delivered to 
General Mitchell, because I can conceive no other rational purpose 
for which such a letter, attending to all its parts, could have been 
written. '* I go to Milledgeville by Savannah, and wish you to keep 
the negroes employed until I can come out to the agency. I have directed 
Tobler to take charge of the horses and packs, Sfc. and to put the hor- 
ses out in the cane swamp, and attend to them." Was this request 
not intended to reach General Mitchell? Why, then, was it insert- 
ed? It was not necessary to the purpose of protection, unless, in- 
deed, we could be so credulous as to suppose, that by arguing a fa- 
miliarity and understanding with General Mitchell, it would act as 
a protection. It was from white men, however, and citizens of the 
United States, that interruption was expected; it was from men too, 
as their letter shows, whose suspicions were already broad awake, 
as to the violation of our slave laws, that were going on in that 
quarter of the union, and who were determined to suppress it; 
with such men, a letter couched in these terms, had it been written 
by General Mitchell himself, instead of Bowen, would have afford- 
ed no protection, but, on the contrary, would have insured a sei- 
zure. 

It appears to me impossible for credulity itself to scan the terms 
of this letter, and to doubt that it was written, and sent with the in- 
tention of being delivered, to General Mitchell; for, it seems to me 
that there is no other conceivable purpose, within the scope of hu- 
man invention, for which it could have been written. On the mo- 
ment we reach this conclusion, there is only one further question: 
Would Bowen, or any other man in his senses, have sent such a let- 
ter to General Mitchell, without any apology, or the semblance of 
apology, for so doing; but, on the contrary, with the air of easy 
and familiar friendship and confidence, unless authorized to do so 
by the footing on which he knew himself to stand with that gentle- 
man, without a perfect understanding with him before hand? And, 
if this question must, from the nature of things, be answered in the 
negative, the inquiry is at an end; the fact of a guilty understand- 
ing and connection between Bowen and the agent is established. 

It is true this letter did not reach its place of destination. It was 
not delivered to General Mitchell, because both the letter and bill of 
sale were lost by Tobler, lost, I presume, before he had an opportu- 
nity of delivering the letter; I presume so, because, as it is clear to 
my understanding, that the letter could have been written for no other 
purpose than to be delivered, I can conceive no reason why it should not 
have been delivered, if an opportunity had occurred of doing so. That 
those papers were lost before such opportunity occurred, is rendered 
highly probable, by the following circumstances. Bowen's affidavit 
is calculated to give the impression, that after parting with Tobler 
and the negroes, at Drummond's Bluff, he had never seen them again 
until after their arrival at the agency; that the negroes arrived be- 
fore him, and that he found them there on his arrival. It is true 
he does not say this explicitly; such, however, is the fair inference 



49 [ 93 ] 

from his narrative. But he does say, explicitly, that his inquiries of 
Tobler for the letter, were made after the negroes had arrived at the 
agency. Now it is important to observe, that John Oliphant, the 
witness, states that, after landing the negroes in Camden county, 
about six miles below camp Pinkney, they proceeded about sixteen 
miles on Blackshear's road, "where Mr. Bowen left us about midnight, 
and did not join us again until we got in a few days travel of the agen- 
cy." In confirmation of this statement, General Mitchell, in his com- 
munication to the Secretary of War, implies, and Captain Mitchell 
in his affidavit expressly states, that Bowen did arrive with the se- 
cond parcel of negroes. 

Now, if Bowen was so desirous that the letter from Drummond s 
Bluff should not be seen by the agent, would it not have been natu- 
ral for him to have demanded it immediately upon his joining the par- 
ty, within a few days travel of the agency? Nay, if it had been in- 
tended to be delivered to the agent, yet, inasmuch as the necessity of its 
delivery had been superseded by Bowen's personal presence, and 
more particularly as the letter was full of danger both to himself and 
General Mitchell, can it be believed that he would not have demanded 
and destroyed it immediately on re-joining the party? Can it be be- 
lieved that he would have travelled for several days, with the party 
towards the agency, leaving to Tobler, an Indian, addicted, it seems, 
to habits of intoxication, the custody of a paper which it was no long- 
er necessary to preserve, while every moment of its existence was 
big with danger both to his friend and himself? And if, with all these 
means of prevention, he did permit Tobler to continue in possession 
of that letter, nay, to carry it to the agency, can it be believed that 
he felt all the solicitude he professes, to keep this letter from the 
knowledge of the agent? To me the only natural and probable course 
seems to be that, whether the letter was originally intended for Gene- 
ral Mitchell's eye or not, Bowen should have demanded the letter 
immediately on rejoining the party, a few days journey from the agen- 
cy; I believe that if he deemed it necessary to demand it all, he must 
have demanded it there, and that he there received the answer that 
it was lost, and consequently that no opportunity ever was afforded 
of delivering the letter; hence, the weight which General Mitchell at- 
taches to its non-delivery is destroyed, and the solution of this diffi- 
cult problem which Bowen has labored to extract from the hypothe- 
sis that Tobler had arrived before him, and had not delivered the let- 
ter, according to his order not to deliver it, is dissipated. Indeed, if 
the letter had been lost after the arrival at the agency, and among the 
usual haunts of the Indians and white people at that place, it is dif- 
ficult to conceive how Mr. Bowen could have regained his compo- 
sure and satisfaction at such a discovery, on the supposition that it 
would never be found; such a supposition, and such an effect from it, 
would be natural enough, if the letter had been lost in the wilder- 
ness, before he had joined the party, and several days journey from 
the agency; but they are both extremely unnatural and improbable^ 
in relation to the loss of such a document happening at the agency r 



[93] 



50 



among the dwellings of the people, where there was every probabili- 
ty and almost certainty, that it would be found. Finally, if this pa- 
per was lost at the agency, after the continued opportunity which 
Bowen had had, for several days, of preventing such an accident, I 
repeat it, that he must give up all pretensions to any concern, from its 
meeting the eye of the agent. 

You will observe that Moore does not profess to have been, himself, 
the finder of this letter. He received it, together with Tobler's bill 
of sale, from an Indian woman, by the name of Mary. When, and 
where, Mary found it, from whom she received it, we are not inform- 
ed. Moore's impression is, that it was lost by Tobler, at the agency. 
Be it so; of one thing we are certain — that Bowen wrote the letter; 
and there is no rational doubt that it was originally written with the 
intention of being delivered to Gen. Mitchell. We are certain of another 
thing, that, if the letter reached the agency in the charge of Tobler, 
it was because Bowen felt no solicitude about its fate. 

The letters of the 7th and 23d March, from Milledgeville, are next 
to be considered. Notwithstanding the strong negative proof fur- 
nished by Gen. Mitchell, these letters carry with them an internal 
proof of their own genuineness, which, when compared with the ac- 
knowledged letter from Drummond's Bluff, with the other circum- 
stances in the case, and with Gen. Mitchell's whole conduct, through- 
out, it is very difficult to resist. And when, to these violent pre- 
sumptions, we add Bowen's abrupt evasions of Gov. Clarke's inter-> 
rogatories on this subject, (so much like the cowardly flinching of a 
guilty conscience, and so utterly unlike the intrepid openness of con- 
scious innocence,) I confess that I have little doubt that the letters 
were written by Bowen. Gov. Clarke's remarks on these letters are 
well worthy your attention. 

The results of this examination are, 

First. That there is no proof that General Mitchell made any 
pecuniary advance for the purchase of these negroes. 

Second. That there is no proof that he had any personal agency 
in the purchase or introduction of them. 

Third. That there is no proof that he had any knowledge of this 
specific purchase and introduction, until the negroes arrived at the 
agency. 

Fourth. But that there is presumptive proof that there was a 
previous general understanding, at least, between Bowen and him, on 
which Bowen founded his whole plan of operations in regard to those 
negroes. 

These circumstances are, 

First. The conversations imputed to General Mitchell by the wit- 
nesses Loving and Woodward, and the conversation of Groce with 
Breithaupt, as explained by subsequent acts. 

Second. The connexion of General Mitchell with Bowen in the 
distribution of the gl 0,000 worth of goods at Fort Hawkins, in July, 
1817, mentioned by Captain Melvin, and the fact in this very month 
(when too General Mitchell acknowlegcs that he had seen him,) 



51 [93] 

Bowen set out on the expedition, which terminated in the pnrchase of 
"■^K 06 ™,. f»rt nf his taking the negroes to the agency. 

strict consonance *ith those conversations, and with the hypothesis 

££2!7 «* ? Mrc/iase Bnd "n* - ** untd their ar 

"Xwm conduct, after their arrival at the ftj***^ °*' 1 " 
nion, utterly inconsistent with the supposition of his » nnocenc «' 

General Mitchell admits, in his letter of the 25th December, 18 7, 
that he was fully apprized of the solicitude of this government to sup- 
r»vJ the African slave trade: and, if his witness, Thomas, is to be 
Kved he waTalso perfectly aware both of the danger and d.sre- 
^S^^S^^^^ such a business He must, in he 
nature of t\lg"f have been perfectly apprized of the odium which 
was attached to it, not only in Georgia, but in every other part 

^KlSKTB^CK C ^ would have been natural for 

a man of common intelligence, and of ordinary pride of character to 

have acted, when, on the 8th Dec. 1817, he discovered that Bowen 

had dared o intrude himself into the agency, w th half a hundred^ 

smugs led African negroes; a measure so directly and inevitably ca 1- 

culatld to throw upon the agent public suspicion and infamy? W ould 

not hts indignation 1 have been excited to the highest pitch, at such an 

act of audacity; and must he not have seen that nothing could save 

him from the consequence of such a step, but the most prompt and 

porous measures of resistance? Would he not instantaneously \mve 

sSzd the culprit and given him up to the laws of his country? VV ould 

he not have immediately given up the negroes to the Governor of the 

state within whose constitutional limits and jurisdiction the agency 

was established? And would he not, forthwith, have forwarded a/ui 

and fair report of the whole case to the government, whose oiheer he 

was? Such, it seems to me, would certainly have been the course oi 

any man, even of common intelligence and prudence, so cii-cumstanc- 

ed, and this far his own sake, putting aside every incentive of patriot. 

ism; for such a course would have repelled every suspicion winch tin 

presumption of Bowen was calculated to throw upon him, and havi 

iiWced his purity beyond the reach of question. '■ 

P How mferent was the course pursued by Gen. Mitchell' Intelli 



[ 93 ] 52 

gent, proud of character, and energetic, as he seems to be, instead of 
arresting Bovven, he permits him to return to Amelia Island, and re- 
peat the offence by bringing another cargo of Africans to the agency. 
Instead of handing over the negroes to the executive of the state, he 
makes no communication of facts whatever, so far as the proofs 
speak, to that executive, until after the seizure by Mcintosh; and, 
to his own government, (whom he was bound, by his duty, to keep 
correctly informed.) he writes only the letters of the 25th December, 
1817, and 3d February, 1818, both of which are calculated to mislead 
the government as to the true state of the case, for both keep out of 
view the double importation by Bowen; both represent the negroes 
as being all gone; from neither could the government infer that there 
was any case, actually pending at the agency, on which their counsel 
was asked, for both letters treat the case as if finally disposed of; 
nor was there any disclosure of the important fact that nearly one 
half of the negroes were yet at the agency, until the explosion pro- 
duced by M'clntosh rendered longer concealment impossible, and 
robbed the subsequent disclosure, on the part of the agent, of all pre- 
tensions to merit. 

But, what is worse, while the government was thus kept in the 
dark, Gen. Mitchell, under color of an obsolete law of Georgia, 
wholly inapplicable to the case, and which, if it had been in full force 
and vigor, and also applicable, he well knew gave him no power to 
act, gives up to Groce one half of these Africans, with a passport 
which authorized him to carry them to the place for which he knew, 
as appears by his communications, that they had been originally pur- 
chased; thus lending the authority of his office to aid in the consum- 
mation of a conscious breach of the laws. 

The other half are detained at the agency. Why? Because, says 
Mitchell, he was waiting the orders of the government, when he had 
reported no case calling for any orders; because, says Bowen, it was 
necessary for him (Bowen) to go back to Georgia and get other 
security to bond this parcel too. Between them, however, there the 
negroes remained until they were seized by McQueen Mcintosh. 

That Gen. Mitchell should suffer the agency under his command 
to be made a place of rendezvous for smuggled African negroes; that 
he should make the government no fair report of the case; that he 
should co-operate with the violators of the law in the execution of 
their purpose, and that under so flimsy a pretext as the law of Geor- 
gia of 1796; that he should reduce himself to the degrading necessity 
of obtaining from the culprit, whom he ought, in the first instance, 
to have seized and dragged to punishment, a certificate that he* 
Mitchell, had no concern in the affair, as Bowen states he did; and 
that he should do all this without reward, and from an innocent mis- 
take of the law, would certainly be a very charitable conclusion; but. 
as it would, also, in my opinion, be a very irrational one, especially 
in regard to a man of Gen. Mitchell's superior understanding, I am 
constrained to adopt the conclusion (painful as it is,"! mat General 



53 I 93 ] 

Mitchell is guilty of having prostituted his power, as agent for Indian 
affairs at the Creek agency, to the purpose of aiding and assisting in a 
conscious breach of the act of Congress of 1807, in prohibition of the 
slave trade, and this from mercenary motives. 
I have the honor to remain, Sir, 

Most respectfully, 

Your obedient servant, 

TVM. WIRT. 
The President of the United States. 



FJe'IO 



